UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
Transactions in stone: making sculpture in Athenian society in the sixth and fifth
centuries BC
Hochscheid, H.K.
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
Hochscheid, H. K. (2010). Transactions in stone: making sculpture in Athenian society in the sixth and fifth
centuries BC
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),
other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating
your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask
the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)
Download date: 15 Jun 2017
Transactions in Stone
Transactions
in Stone
Making sculpture in
Athenian society
in the sixth and fifth
centuries BC
Helle Hochscheid
Helle Hochscheid
Transactions in Stone
Making sculpture in Athenian society
in the sixth and fifth centuries BC
Helle Hochscheid
Transactions in Stone
ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam
op gezag van de Rector Magnificus
prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom
ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties
ingestelde commissie,
in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit
op woensdag 8 september 2010, te 14.00 uur
door
Helle Kaja Hochscheid
geboren te Sulingen, Duitsland
Promotores:
Prof. dr. B. Kempers
Prof. dr. U. Sinn
Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen
to those whom the earth has covered
Table of contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................................ix
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
Athenian sculpture: an art world .............................................................................2
Method, material and selection criteria....................................................................9
History and the sculpture of Athens .....................................................................14
I
A CITY OF STATUES
1
Quantitative perspectives in sculpture ..................................................................19
Votive sculpture and bases ...................................................................................24
Gravestones and bases ........................................................................................31
Votive and grave monuments: a comparison .........................................................33
2
Provenance: sanctuaries and cemeteries ...............................................................39
The Akropolis .......................................................................................................40
The Akropolis: a closer look .................................................................................59
The Kerameikos....................................................................................................63
The Agora and beyond .........................................................................................70
3
II
Numbers and provenance: an overview .................................................................80
CHOICES IN MARBLE
1
History, marble and the ancient economy .............................................................84
2
Stones and marbles .............................................................................................89
The material of bases ........................................................................................101
3
Work in the quarries ..........................................................................................103
4
Trade and transportation ...................................................................................118
5
Conclusion: sculpture and the marble trade .......................................................129
ii
III
IV
THE SCULPTOR’S TRADE
1
Professional status and specialisation in sculpture ..............................................135
2
Terms of the trade .............................................................................................143
3
Sculptors’ hands and signatures .........................................................................150
4
The sculpture shop ............................................................................................168
5
The workings of techne ......................................................................................180
6
Conclusion: theory and practice in sculpture ......................................................196
A PATRON’S WORLD
1
Sculpture patronage and the Athenians ..............................................................199
2
The place of inscriptions ....................................................................................201
3
Iconography and genres of sculpture .................................................................206
The subjects of reliefs ........................................................................................213
Mortals and deities, men and women .................................................................219
4
Names and the status of patrons ........................................................................225
Professional display and craftsmen as patrons ....................................................243
Non-athenians and citizens ...............................................................................249
V
5
Representing the living and the dead .................................................................254
6
Laws and religious regulations ............................................................................267
7
Conclusion: patronage and the limits of sculpture ..............................................279
EPILOGUE ..................................................................................................................283
SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................289
NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING .............................................................................................293
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................297
APPENDICES
iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Throughout this study and in the database, journal abbreviations are those of the Jahresbibliographie des
Deutschen archäologischen Instituts; monographs are referred to by author and year of publication,
except for the abbreviations for standard works listed below. Abbreviations of ancient texts are as in H.
G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. Jones and R. McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1961.
The spelling of Greek names is not Latinised, except in those cases where words would become
somewhat unrecognisable, or if the word is used in the English language as well: it is not metoikos, but
metic; but the Akropolis, Aischylos and Polykleitos remain as they are.
ABV
J. D. Beazley, Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters, New York 1978
Addenda
T. H. Carpenter, Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV 2 and
Paralipomena, Oxford 1989
AEE
S. A. Koumanoudis, ¡Attiki\j e)pigrafai\ e)pitu/mbioi, Athens 1871
AG
A. C. L. Conze, Die attischen Grabreliefs, Berlin 1893
AGA
G. M. A. Richter, The Archaic Gravestones of Attica, London 1961
AMA
H. Schrader, E. Langlotz and W. H. Schuchhardt, Die archaischen Marmorbildwerke der Akropolis, Frankfurt am Main 1939
APF
J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, Oxford 1971
ARV
J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters (2nd ed.), Oxford 1963
ASGS2
B. S. Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture (2nd ed.), Princeton NJ, 1993
Asmosia II
M. Waelkens, N. Herz and L. Moens eds., Ancient Stones. Quarrying, Trade and
Provenance, Leuven 1992
Asmosia III
Y. Maniatis, N. Herz and Y. Basiakos eds., The Study of Marble and Other
Stones Used in Antiquity. Transactions of the 3rd International Symposium of
the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones Used in Antiquity,
London 1995
Asmosia IV
M. Schvoerer ed., Archéomatériaux: marbres et autres roches, Bordeaux 1999
Asmosia V
J. J. Hermann, N. Herz and R. Newman eds., Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient
Stone. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Association for the
Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, London 2002
Cat. B, G or V
Catalogue of material of this study, presented on the CD accompanying it: B for
Bases (either votive or sepulchral), G for Gravestones, and V for Votives
v
CEG I
P. A. Hansen, Carmina epigraphica Graeca: saeculorum VIII-V a. Chr., Berlin 1983
Clairmont CAT
C. W. Clairmont, Classical Attic Tombstones, Kilchberg 1993-95
DAA
A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis: A Catalogue of the
Inscriptions of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BC, Cambridge MA, 1949
FD II
J. P. Michaud, Fouilles de Delphes II: topographie et architecture, Paris 1973
FD III
T. Homolle, Fouilles de Delphes III: épigraphie, Paris 1909
FSGS
B. S. Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, Madison WI, 1981
GSAP
J. Boardman, Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period, London 1978
GSCP
J. Boardman, Greek Sculpture: The Classical Period, London 1985
IG
Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin 1873-
Ker.
Kerameikos, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen (s.v. author), Berlin 1939-
Korai
G. M. A. Richter, Korai: Archaic Greek Maidens, London 1968
Kouroi
G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths, London 1970
Künstlerlexikon
R. Vollkommer and D. Vollkommer-Glökler eds., Künstlerlexikon der Antike,
München 2001-2004
LGPN
M. J. Osborne and S. G. Byrne, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names: Attica, Oxford
1994
LIMC
H. Chr. Ackerman et al. eds., Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae,
Düsseldorf 1981-1999
LSAG
L. H. Jeffery, and A. W. Johnston, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of
the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and Its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth
Centuries BC, Oxford 1990
LSCG
F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Paris 1969
LSJ
H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. Jones and R. McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.),
Oxford 1961
ML
R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End
of the Fifth Century BC, Oxford 1988
OED
D. Thompson ed., Oxford Concise English Dictionary, Oxford 1995 (9th ed.)
PA
J. Kirchner, Prosopographia attica, Berlin 1901-1903
PAA
J. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens, Toronto 2001
Paralipomena
J. D. Beazley, Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters and to
Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters (2nd ed.), Oxford 1971
Peek AG I
W. Peek, Attische Grabgedichte I, Berlin 1954
Peek AV
W. Peek, Attische Versinschriften, Berlin 1980
vi
Peek GG
W. Peek, Griechische Grabgedichte, Berlin 1960
Schriftquellen
J. A. Overbeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Künste
bei den Griechen, Hildesheim 1959
SAA
J. Frel, Les sculpteurs attiques anonymes: 430-400, Prague 1971
SSG 3
G. M. A. Richter, The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks (3d ed.), New Haven
CT, 1957
SSGS
B. S. Ridgway, The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture, Princeton NJ, 1970
vii
Acknowledgements
Over the years, the list of those who encouraged and supported me and stopped me from
altogether dropping this project has grown to great numbers. Doubtlessly most active have
been my promotores Bram Kempers and Ulrich Sinn, and in an earlier stage Herman Brijder.
Their never-failing support has kept me going especially in the final phase, when the
remainder of work began to outweigh the motivation for doing it.
Most time in writing a dissertation is spent sat at a computer; all the more welcome
are the times when one is allowed to go out to do research. This study owes much to those
who work at museums, libraries and research institutes. Of great importance have been the
wonderful staff members of the Netherlands Institute at Athens, who put up with me year
after year and whose support has often given me the energy to go on. The staff of various
museums in Athens have been immensely kind and patient with my very lengthy lists of study
requests, especially A. Mantis, I. Trianti and Chr. Vlassopoulou of the Akropolis Museum; A.
Lazaridi of the First Ephoria; A. Choremi and J. Jordan of the Agora Museum; I. Touratsoglou
and M. Salta of the National Museum; Ch. Kritsas and M. Tsouli of the Epigraphic Museum; J.
Stroszeck, Th. Kyriakou and L. Parlama of the Kerameikos site and museum; and all those
who put the many heavy pieces in place for me to study. Their knowledge of sculpture is in
all cases impressive, and I could not have written this dissertation without them.
Libraries have been another favourite haunt over the years. I owe a debt of gratitude
to Janta van Lienden, the librarian of the Netherlands Institute at Athens during my studies
there, for sharing her great knowledge of libraries and bibliographical conventions with me
and for many good talks about antiquity (and more recent times). The staff of the libraries of
the British School and the Scuola Italiana in Athens often helped me, and I would like to thank
them for their flexibility. I am grateful to the personnel of the University of Amsterdam
Library, especially the Classics and Antiquity department, for continually getting me that one
book from the storeroom when it was almost closing time.
When this project began, I received a full scholarship of the Institute for Culture and
History of the University of Amsterdam. Without this stipend and the institute’s continuous
support until the completion of this dissertation, it would not have been written. A great
many thanks, therefore, to Burcht Pranger, Paul Koopman and Irene Zwiep for having seen
something in this project, and perhaps more of a challenge, for never giving up on it.
ix
The University of Amsterdam’s Archaeological Institute has been where I spent most of my
research time, and its members have given me much incentive to work – and to take off to a
pub with them. In particular I would like thank my instructors Joost Crouwel, Marijke Gnade
Patricia Lulof, Eric Moormann and Kees Neeft, and my roommates at one point or another:
Martine, Anneke, Lara, Hendrieneke, Olaf, Ellen, Anne and Jan. The person who has stuck with
me to the end and back, and who will always be my roommate even if we were to work on
different sides of the planet, is Lione du Piêd. I know you will finish yours soon, too.
Since a few years, Roosevelt Academy in Middelburg has replaced Amsterdam for me
and a new set of colleagues have become friends. First I must thank Albert Clement and Mark
Janse for being the best bosses a PhD student could wish for, as well as supportive friends.
Because Roosevelt Academy is a small institution, my roommates here are in fact all over the
building: Manon, Hans, Ernestine, Nancy, Ewa, Herman, Beatriz, Karolien, Els, Anya, Christine,
Giles and Dorothee. Special thanks I owe to Kathrin Steigerwald, Emöke Jakab, Tina Lenz and
Chad Weidner. Kathrin corrected my English on short notice and Emöke helped with statistics.
Tina Lenz has done her usual brilliant work on designing this book. Chad has been my rock
over the last years, sharing an office with me as well as the woes of our MA status.
So many friends have supported me during the process of writing this study that I
cannot enumerate them all. Some of the dearest are Niki van Balen, Eva Fotiadi, Rinie and Max
Hamel, Jorrit Kelder, Anna Konstantinou, Gertjan Negrijn, Lidy van Oort, Narender and Renate
van Orshoven, Frans van Ruth, Friederike Sinn, Barbara Söhngen and Welmoed Westerveld. My
neighbours Aad, Marjan and Julia have made me part of their family and the coffee, sweat and
tears we shared could fill a medium-sized moat. Ronald Hamel has in fact saved this project
on numerous occasions, not only by being an extraordinary friend, but also because he is an
equally extraordinary mentor and scholar.
The Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam is a special place, and so are the people
who work there. I would like to mention in particular René van Beek, Geralda Jurriaans-Helle
and Ron Leenheer, whose knowledge and understanding have helped me both in motivation
and academically. The same applies to colleagues of the Classics and Ancient History
departments of the University of Amsterdam and of Utrecht University. Albert Rijksbaron and
Mathieu de Bakker of Classics, and ancient historians Emily Hemelrijk and Josine Blok have
been very generous with their time and knowledge. A very special mention deserves Jaap
Hemelrijk, who grounded me in sculpture and who is the most critical and careful reader
anyone could wish for.
x
Of all those dear to me, my family have probably suffered most over the years of research
and writing. Endless telephone calls were spent trying to cheer me up when things got stuck
or results were baffling. My father Rolf Hochscheid and his partner Barbara Cook have been
wonderful in their intellectual support as well as their subtle hints that they would not love
me less if I did not finish it. They probably realised this would only make me more eager to
complete it. My aunt and uncle, Chriesta and Edmond Langezaal, have listened over the years
to far too long hours of archaeological explanations, fortunately over excellent food and wine
which they provided. My two sisters Doris and Oda just amaze me. They both juggle studies
and busy careers and yet are always there for me when I need them – which has been
frequently. My partner Michael Burke promised a few years back that he would do for me
what I did for him when he was completing his PhD thesis, and he has been as good as his
word. His conviction that it would be finished one day has pulled me out of many a foul
mood. But most importantly, my life has been both beautiful and silly since he entered it: an
ideal breeding ground for scholarship.
When years ago, I decided that archaeology was what I wanted to do, my mother said
it was just the kind of practical thing that would suit me. She did so from a hospital bed, and
she never lived to see that as so often, she was right. To her and others who have died
untimely deaths, this study is dedicated.
xi
Introduction
Parthenos, Telesinos of Kettos dedicated a statue on the Akropolis
If it pleases you, may you allow that he dedicate another
1
In the final years of the sixth century BC, Telesinos of Kettos offered a statuette of Athena
Promachos to the goddess on the Akropolis of Athens (pls. 1a-b).2 Not an unusual event;
many of his fellow Athenians had preceded him, and many would follow in centuries to come.
What stands out is the dedicatory inscription on the column, in which Telesinos urges Athena
to provide the means for another votive. His eagerness makes one wonder whether he
succeeded. A man by the name of Telesinos served as archon in 487/6, and it is tempting to
identify these two as the same, as evidence of the goddess’ continuing favour. The fact that
no second dedicatory inscription by Telesinos was found in Athens is inconclusive: he might
have offered a gift to Athena elsewhere, or his dedication may have been lost over the
centuries. Then again, he might not have set up anything because she did not grant his wish
or because he did not survive the great conflict of his time: the Persian Wars.
Perhaps it is too much to ask for such depth of biographical detail about the
Athenians whose sculpted gifts are now prize exhibits in museums of art. Still, this
monument offers a glimpse of the patron Telesinos, his reasons to dedicate a statue and to
inscribe it with a direct petition to Athena. He was reasonably wealthy – the statue was not
large, but it was cast in bronze and set up on a column – and he considered it a fitting tribute
to the goddess. It expresses his piety; at the same time, his request displays a remarkable
matter-of-factness. The monument tells us further that a sculptor, in this case a bronze
caster, was hired to make the statuette of Athena and presumably was paid for his work.
Since only the plate attached to her feet remains on the column (pl. 1b), the quality of his
1
Cat. B 40, Akr. 6505, IG I3 728: Farqe/ne [sic] e)n a)kropo/lei Telesi=noj a)/galm’ a)ne/qeken / K/e/t(t)ioj,
ho=i xai/rosa didoi/ej a)/l(l)o a)naqe=nai. Cat nos. refer to the database on the CD, where bibliographic
references are listed in the References field of the Bases table, and in the reference tables
GravDates and VotDates. See also Abbreviations.
2
De Ridder 1896, 312 no. 796; Niemeyer 1964, 21 pl. 11; Brouskari 1979, 48; Van Straten 1992,
248; Keesling 2003, 90-1; Kissas 2000, 232-3 no. 186; LGPN II 425 (9); DAA 43 no. 40
(Raubitschek suggests a horse or horseman); PAA XVI, 275-6 no. 879515; PA 13533. All dates are
BC unless stated otherwise.
1
workmanship cannot be judged. No signature is preserved, therefore his name is unknown.
Yet Telesinos liked this sculptor’s statues enough to put in his commission, and so the gift
was made and offered.
Simple as this process may sound, it raises numerous questions. How did a patron
choose a particular sculptor for a votive or for a gravestone? Why a bronze Athena rather than
a kore in marble? Did the sculptor also provide the supporting base, and who inscribed it?
Which marble was to be preferred; where could this be obtained and how did it arrive in
Athens? The answers to such questions lie partly within the monument itself and can be
addressed thanks to the high standard of preservation of Athenian material of the sixth and
fifth centuries. They present the process of creating sculpted dedications and gravestones as
a chain of choices, some conscious, some ruled by circumstances beyond the makers’
control, but all influencing their appearance. Thus, the sculpture from ancient Athens shows
the traces of its manufacture, of the motives of private patrons, the purposes of sculptors,
but also of the interference of historical incident.
In exploring these choices and coincidences, this study aims to open up new
discussions about the production of private sculpture in its context of Athenian society. It
examines the question of what went into the making of sculpture in sixth and fifth-century
Athens. To shed light on this process, it must be investigated who took part in creating
Athenian sculpture and what exactly they contributed. Thus, at the heart of this study is the
role which the inhabitants of Athens played in the process of making sculpted monuments –
statues, stelai and bases – with which they honoured their gods and their dead.
A THENIAN SCULPTURE : AN ART WORLD
From a modern perspective, the most important person in the creation of sculpture is without
a doubt the artist. He or she conceives the idea for a statue, its subject, its composition, its
pose and so forth, then transfers the idea to the selected stone and when finished, mounts it
on a base.3 Even if the patron involved orders a statue to certain specifications, a present-day
audience will attribute the essential creative drive behind it to the sculptor.
3
Design and carving are not always done by the same person: in 20th-century Pietrasanta, Italy,
artists delivered designs which local sculptors executed, often presenting the work as their own. A
documentary about this by film maker Paul Beek was broadcast in the Close-Up series on Dutch
2
Yet before a statue stands on its pedestal for the public to see, many different activities are
needed. Design and carving are only two steps in a process in which not only sculptors are
involved, but others too. The notion that art is never the product of the inspiration and
labour of a single individual, but rather requires a collective effort of many groups and
persons has been eloquently formulated by Howard S. Becker in Art Worlds. The art world is a
network – social and professional – of all those who in some way contribute to the ultimate
appearance or form of a work of art, ranging from the supply of materials to selling tickets
for a show, from visiting museums to writing art reviews:4
‘Art worlds consist of all the people whose activities are necessary to the
production of the characteristic works which that world, and perhaps others as
well, define as art. (…) Works of art, from this point of view, are not the products
of individual makers, “artists” who possess a rare and special gift. They are,
rather, joint products of all the people who cooperate via an art world’s
conventions to bring works like that into existence.’
This view may seem to award too much importance to those whose involvement in the
process of creation is only marginal. But even minor tasks can be essential. Becker gives the
example of stagehands at the ballet.5 Most people would not include them in an imaginary
tableau de la troupe or a list of crucial participants. Yet without them, as he puts it, the show
would not go on. A social approach to the creation of art can disregard artistic hierarchies:
not in order to belittle the capacities of artists, but because it looks at the communication in
a group of people whose contributions (which may be of varying importance) ultimately
shape the artwork in question.
The participants of an art world in Becker’s definition can be divided in five
categories, which overlap to a certain degree: the artists, support personnel, patrons,
television in 2001 (archive of the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision, inv. id. 158856,
Marmer: de mythe van de beeldhouwkunst (Marble: the myth of sculpture). Another example, the
Diamond Skull, was designed by the artist Damian Hirst, but its execution had to be left to others
for a considerable part (D. Hirst and R. Fuchs, For the Love of God: The Making of the Diamond
Skull, London 2007). See A. Johnson, A Damien Hirst Original…, The Independent, 14 September
2008, (http://artsandentertainment.independentminds.livejournal.com/140545.html). Cf. also
Rockwell 2008, 110 (for a Hellenistic-Roman parallel).
4
Becker 1984, 34-5.
5
Becker 2008, Preface to the anniversary edition, xvi.
3
distributors and the public.6 The role of artists is obviously essential in the creation of art,7
and that this was recognised in antiquity is apparently confirmed by many sculptors’
signatures on the monuments of ancient Athens. Yet an artist’s work in any period depends
on the world outside the workshop as well. A sculptor in marble has to get stone and other
materials for the monument. In sixth and fifth-century Athens, one can further think of paint,
glass paste for eyes, precious metal for gilding, inserts or attributes, iron dowels and lead for
encasing them, and so forth. These are in addition to production materials, that is, tools:
chisels, hammers, drills, saws, and pumice for polishing.
Already in antiquity, tools were put in a different category than raw materials.8 This is
particularly relevant because it ties in with Becker’s distinction between artists and support
personnel. The former cut statues from marble by means of tools, while the latter provided
these tools, and often the raw materials as well. The boundary between the activities of
artists and those of support personnel, however, would have been blurred. For example, a
sculptor’s apprentices could provide support services, but also contribute to the statue
directly;9 cutting stone from quarries, as will be discussed in a later chapter, was done in part
by the sculptors themselves, in part by specialised quarrymen. Moreover, some sculptors
might have made their own tools rather than getting them from a specialist. The extent to
which such overlap was the case offers an indication of the level of specialisation.10 One of
the objectives of this study is to establish which tasks sculptors and support personnel
performed in the art world of Athenian sculpture and to find out whether any changes
occurred in the range of activities of either group during the sixth and fifth centuries.
The final groups in Becker’s categorisation are distributors and critics. The former
provide platforms where artists can show their work to potential buyers.11 To the group of
6
Becker 1984, 2-14.
7
Ibid. 35: ‘Artists are some subgroup of the world’s participants who, by common agreement,
possess a special gift, therefore make a unique and indispensable contribution to the work, and
thereby make it art.’
8
They appear as separate classes of items in Plato’s Statesman (Plt. 287e-289b).
9
Becker defines the category of support personnel as including those who do not work directly on
the work of art, e.g. an assistant who brings coffee. Since contributions without a material
expression cannot be traced in antiquity, the support personnel is for the current study limited to
those whose labour is evident.
10
See below, ch. III on labour organisation and specialisation of sculptors and support personnel.
11
Becker 1984, 95, 108-19. The distribution of stone is, of course, a different matter, to be
discussed in ch. II.4.
4
critics Becker reckons the public, theorists, art historians and the like. However, the existence
of these groups in ancient art worlds is not self-evident. In the 2008 edition of Art Worlds,
Becker explains how he devised the art worlds by generalising the observations which he had
gathered from artistic practice.12 His evidence is largely from the 20th century AD, and the
use of art worlds for antiquity can be questioned. Certainly, archaic and classical Athens had
no art galleries or museums, no art reviews or systematic research of art. Critiques and art
history were as yet non-existent. Because of the generally tailor-made production mode,
long-distance distribution of finished sculpture was limited, and professional infrastructure
(such as, for example, auctions, or art traders delivering to galleries or museums) did not
exist in the sixth and fifth centuries.13 In short, there was no art market in the modern sense.
However, not all art worlds from the 20th century which Becker discusses follow the
same patterns. This may be because their activities vary in nature, or because participants do
things differently in different places or in different branches of art. Art worlds are, in fact, not
intended as ‘a comprehensive Theory of Art’.14 They provide a heuristic for the investigation
of groups of people who in some way contribute to the manufacture of works of art, and their
collective modus operandi.
Thus considered, apparent obstacles such as a lack of a professional system of art
distribution in antiquity dissolve. It is worthwhile to consider that ancient sculptors were
quite mobile. Even if art works were not distributed in their finished state, styles and fashions
could be exported; the trade in marble, for example, from the Cycladic islands, brought with
it knowledge of the stone and new ways of working it. Similarly, the absence of connoisseurs,
critics or art historians in sixth and fifth-century Athens does not mean there was no public:
statues in cemeteries and sanctuaries were there for all Athenians to see and to have an
opinion on. The sculptural art world of archaic and classical Athens does not exactly fit 20thcentury art worlds, and it does not need to. After all, the goal of this study is not to prove the
12
Becker 2008, xiii-iv.
13
In the fourth century, this may have been different: Praxiteles’ Knidian Aphrodite was certainly
brought to the island in her finished state (Plin. HN 36.4). The status of Praxiteles was
extraordinary, and so were the circumstances of the commission (two versions were made, of which
Kos chose the dressed statue and Knidos the nude). Fourth-century sculptors such as Skopas seem
to have been traveling around for architectural programmes. If, for example, he contributed to the
temple of Artemis at Ephesus, Skopas, a native Parian, must have gone there in person (Plin. HN
36.21). For a discussion of the evidence of traveling sculptors in the sixth and fifth centuries see
ch. II.4; for Praxiteles below p. 188.
14
Becker 2008, xx.
5
universal value of the sociological model of art worlds. Rather, it aims to shed light on how
the art world of Athenian sculpture functioned.
In fact, it is precisely because art worlds sidestep the aesthetic hierarchy of artistic
authorship that they fit the sculpture practice of Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries. An
art world engages in the ‘production of the characteristic works which that world, and
perhaps others as well, define as art’. Whether the result is fit for a museum of Art is less
relevant, if the aim is to explore the social dimensions of its manufacture. This focus can be
designated as the socio-productional context of a work of art: the relations between groups
and individuals through whose activities art comes into being, or put differently, the social
discourse which shapes production in the setting of an art world. Archaeology offers the
evidence for this process, from the beginning of the line, in quarries and workshops, to its
end, in the sanctuaries and cemeteries of Athens.
Ancient sculpture has retrospectively been elevated to high artistic status, but there
is no evidence that such views were held in the sixth and fifth centuries. The modern concept
Art has no exact equivalent in ancient Greek, and it is doubtful whether the ancient
alternatives convey enough of the sublime to approach modern definitions.15 Though
pleasing aesthetics were surely much appreciated, many ancient sculptures were functional
objects, sometimes literally, like for example water basins, and sometimes of a religious or
ritual nature, commemorating sacrifice or a deceased, or presenting the gods with a gift.16 In
these cases, their religious functionality was more important than their aesthetic value.
This function of sculpture in ancient Athens differs fundamentally from that which art
with a capital A has nowadays, and the development of the purpose and meaning of art is
closely related to the social motivation for being involved in an art world. Art in modern
society is in many respects status-driven: connoisseurs, art collectors and artists are
categories with which specific, often high positions in society are associated.17 Despite the
great importance of elite status in ancient Greece, it is not self-evident that the Athenians of
the sixth and fifth centuries linked status specifically to patronage of sculpture or of art in
15
This is not to say that the merits of various forms of art or artistic hierarchy were not recognised.
See below, ch. III.1.
16
Nowadays, votives and gravestones can of course be considered Art (and certainly are art in the
sense of an art world), but very often the participants in the present-day circles of high Art in which
sculpture is produced do not agree with this. Cf. Becker 1984, 37-8; Stissi 2009, especially 23-4.
17
See Becker 1984, 100-4.
6
general.18 The idea that sculpture in ancient Athens is likely to have been elitist should be
broached with suspicion, because it represents an anachronistic assumption about the
relation between patrons and art.
Even though in modern English, the word patron conjures images of a wealthy elite
bidding for art at auctions, not all patrons in Becker’s study fit this view.19 Nowadays, parents
who have pictures taken of their child at the photographer’s shop around the corner are
contributors to the art world of photography. It may be a very specific branch of that art
world, but in it, they are patrons nonetheless. In this study, the word patron is used in its
most neutral sense: not as an art lover of high economic and social standing which the word
came to imply in more recent history, but simply as a person who had sculpture made to
order. The meaning which is intended here is closer to that of a patron of a shop (though
without the modern connotation of products being sold from stock) than to, for example, a
Maecenas, whether in the original meaning of the word or in the sense it derived from earlymodern to modern history.20
Despite differences between the notion of elitist patrons of Art and the possible
patrons in art worlds, ancient or modern, there is one aspect which in some form adheres to
all patronage of art. Commissions for any art work, whether monumental sculpture in ancient
Athens or a simple photograph of one’s children nowadays, has an element of public
18
Art patronage in other historical periods has successfully been submitted to similar sociological
analysis. E.g. Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy: A Primer in the Social
History of Pictorial Style, Oxford 1972; Kempers 1994 and id. 1999 (for a diachronic overview); B.
Roeck, Kunstpatronage in der Frühen Neuzeit: Studien zu Kunstmarkt, Künstlern und ihren
Auftraggebern in Italien und im Heiligen Römischen Reich (15.-17. Jahrhundert), Göttingen 1999; L.
Zeitz, “Tizian, teurer Freund ...”: Tizian und Federico Gonzaga. Kunstpatronage in Mantua im 16.
Jahrhundert, Petersberg 2000. For literary patronage e.g. Nauta 2002 (Roman imperial era); De
Beer 2007 (Italian Renaissance), with bibliography on 16-7, especially ns. 2-3.
19
See also Nauta 2002, 12-32 and passim for an extensive overview of the ambiguities of the word
patronage in modern and ancient (notably Roman) contexts.
20
For these meanings OED in particular s.v. patron2. The word ‘patron’ is the most applicable
denominator. ‘Buyers’ or ‘clients’ are too suggestive of stock-in-trade, and ‘commissioner’ has
overtones of present-day governmental institutions. ‘Client’ is confusing also because those who
ordered sculpture were hardly a sculptor’s dependants, as the Latin origin of the word would
suggest (cf. Wallace-Hadrill 1989, Introduction, and ibid. Johnson and Dandeker; for ancient
Athens, ibid. Millett). ‘Dedicants’ or ‘dedicators’ only apply to votives, not to gravestones, and miss
the aspect of commissioning the sculpture. For discussions of this terminology, see also Ridgway
1987, 399 and passim; Onians 1991, 66; Kempers 1999, passim; Nauta 2002, 12-32 and passim
for patronage in (Roman) literature; De Beer 2007, 16-24. See also below ch. IV.1.
7
display.21 Ancient dedications and gravestones were set up in very public places and one
would expect both patrons and sculptors to have had an interest in their monuments’
visibility. The question is whether large votives or gravestones affected the status of patrons,
and if so, how much? This then leads to a second matter, namely: did the element of public
display have any real influence on patrons’ choices? The answers to these questions largely
depend on reactions by the public, which are for the sixth and fifth centuries hard to come
by. In this study, the emphasis is therefore on the process of creating sculpture up until and
including the erection of the votive or gravestone. The choices of patrons will be studied as
they are reflected in the carved or engraved stone (for example, in the genres or iconography
which they preferred for their sculpted monuments), not by possible responses of ancient
Athenian audiences.
Considering the places in which dedications and gravestones were set up, it may
seem incongruous that there can be such a thing as a private votive or grave monument.
What is meant by private in this study is that sculptures were not set up by the city of Athens
or its governing institutions. This criterion is used because from a social point of view,
sculpture patronage by private Athenians differs from patronage of the polis, for example, in
projects like the Parthenon. In such cases, an individual patron had no say about the
appearance of the monument. Any relevant choices were made by a group which was too
large to compare it to the influence of single patrons (or even to small groups like families)
on their commissions. Secondly, a monument of the polis has by default a public purpose,
whether it is to adorn the city or sing the praises of its deities or inhabitants. Private
sculpture may target the whole polis as its audience, but it does not need to do so.
Individuals might have reasons of their own for setting up statues, reasons in which reception
by the public plays little or no part.
Before a piece of sculpted stone was erected for the public to see, however, it had
passed several stages. Each of these is the realm of one of the groups in the art world,
though boundaries are fluid and activities of participants in various stages overlap. Each of
the groups is most involved in one phase of production; after their work is done, they pass it
on to the next person or persons, and this process is repeated until the statue stands on its
pedestal in public realm. Art worlds essentially consist of the communication between these
21
For a discussion of public and private aspects, mainly of grave monuments: Shapiro 1991, passim;
Leader 1997, 684-8; Stissi 2009, 23-4; Blok, forthcoming. For civic and sacred space, e.g.
Kretschmann 2003.
8
contributors. In the present study, this communication revolves around the monument, where
the strands of attention and activities of all participants of the art world connect. In the
following, chapters II, III and IV will therefore explore the groups which constitute the art
world of Athenian sculpture per phase of manufacture. First are the presence and activities of
support personnel who provided marble, then the sculptors and their associates, as well as
the necessary support trades. Although patrons’ activities start off manufacture, their
identities and influence have to be discussed last: not until the practical conditions of the
process of making sculpture have been examined can their role be assessed properly.
Art worlds offer an ideal structure for the present study. Becker’s main objective is to
uncover the socio-productional functioning of art worlds in general. In this study, the aim is
to do the same for the sculpture practice in archaic and early-classical Athens. The question
of what went into the making of sculpture in Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries is
concerned with this particular art world, with the people who participated, artists, support
personnel and patrons, with what they contributed, and how they did so. While the subject is
so far removed in time, the evidence cannot be as complete as it is for art worlds of the 20th
century AD. Yet the corpus of sculpture from Athens, complemented by ancient literature and
epigraphy, has to my knowledge never been submitted to this particular model before. The
wealth of detail which this material provides opens the door to an investigation of the
sculpture of ancient Athens as the product of an art world and all its participants. In the
chapters to come will follow an exploration of who they were, how they communicated with
each other, and how and what they contributed to the manufacture of sculpture. Thus, this
study aims to shed some new light on how sculpture was made in Athenian society in the
sixth and fifth centuries BC.
M ETHOD , MATERIAL AND SELECTION CRITERIA
Telesinos’ monument, cited at the beginning of this Introduction, is from an archaeological
point of view an extraordinary survivor, a stroke of luck largely dependent on its timing. Had
it not been for the deposition of the damaged votives of the archaic period after the Persian
Wars, a far lower quantity of archaic sculpture from Athens would have survived to the
present day. To some extent, the same argument works for archaic gravestones, many of
which were used to build up the city’s defences just after the Persian Wars. At the same time,
such extraordinary circumstances create a distortion in the material compared to adjoining
9
periods. The uneven preservation of sculpture leads to methodological questions, which must
be answered before an interpretation of the material is possible. The present section will
offer an overview of the criteria used to select the sculpture and bases for this analysis, and
of the main methodological choices made along the way.
At the heart of this study are the votive and grave monuments in marble, which
private persons in the city of Athens set up between the beginning of the sixth century and
the end of the fifth century BC. These boundaries require some definition, starting with the
distinction between votive and sepulchral material. Of the marble dedications in this study,
most were found on the Akropolis (map 1). Since no burials from the sixth or fifth centuries
are known from the hill, its finds can reasonably be considered votives. Other sites in Athens
are less straightforward, in particular the Agora. Not only did this site adjoin both the
Akropolis and the Kerameikos (map 1), both sanctuaries and burial grounds existed in the
Agora proper.22 Often, the function of a statue can be derived from the genre (that is, the
type of the statue) or from the iconography. Korai, for example, were rarely used as grave
markers in Attika. If a genre was used for votive as well as sepulchral purposes, as is the case
with, among other types of statuary, lions, the distinction is less clear, and details of a
statue’s appearance and its provenance offer the only clues about its function.23
Excluded from this study is architectural sculpture. Buildings and their sculpted
decorations in the sixth and fifth centuries were generally commissioned by cities or by
sanctuaries, and only rarely by individual patrons.24 In cases where a patron seems to have
been acting on his own in a public commission, he often did so on behalf of the city, as for
example Peisistratos and his sons. Other categories of sculpture which fall outside of the
scope of this study are cult statues, gravestones erected by the state for public funerals, or
documentary reliefs. These can be considered public, either for a form of worship or to lay
down treaties or laws, as opposed to the works which may in principal have been ordered for
the private purposes outlined above.
22
For a discussion of find spots of sculpture, burial grounds and sanctuaries in the Agora as well as
the changing boundaries of the Agora in the sixth century see Harrison 1965, 1-2 and passim, and
below ch. I.2.
23
Problems surrounding the function of individual sculptures are discussed in the database (see data
on the cd-rom).
24
Coulton 1977, 17-8; Jacquemin 1999; Neer 2001 and 2004; Scott, forthcoming; for sculpted
votives dedicated by cities in Delphi, see Ioakimidou 1997. Of course, in later historical periods,
individual patrons offered buildings to cities or sanctuaries more often.
10
The sixth and fifth centuries are particularly interesting for the study of the social aspects of
the production of sculpture, because the shifts which occur in the material are so noticeable:
style, genre and quantity of sculpture changed emphatically. In terms of textual evidence this
period in Athenian history is well-documented too.25 Geographically, the boundaries of the
astu of Athens, the city and its immediate environs, serve as the limits for provenance.26
Comparisons with material from Attika as a whole or even elsewhere in Greece would without
a doubt offer interesting insights about Greek sculpture in the sixth and fifth centuries. The
choice to limit the material exclusively to the city in this study was based on two things: the
coherence of the data, and the character of the art world of Athenian sculpture.
To start with the latter: Athens’ art world was effectively an urban phenomenon, even
though not all of the patrons permanently resided in the city itself. Most sculpture was
manufactured and set up in the city, and opportunities for doing so were more frequent
there. It will be argued below that Athens developed an exceptional appeal for sculptors in
the course of the sixth and fifth centuries. In light of this, the city is an excellent place to
study the workings of this art world, while other regions require their own investigations. The
point of coherence of the data is related to this consideration. The investigation presented
here can be considered a test case, in which the notion of art worlds is used to approach all
possible sources of information about Athenian sculpture, to see if new insights can be
gleaned from the available (well-studied) material. Quantitative comparison with other places
in Greece or other periods would be problematic, because in the publications of the material
of those places, different criteria of selection and analysis have been applied than the ones
used in this study. In order to be comparable on a quantitative level, the research would have
to be conducted with similar methods.
Of the votive and gravestone monuments from the sixth and fifth centuries which
constitute the record under consideration here, almost all were previously published.27
Various aspects of this main body of material have been listed in the database on the CD
25
Most textual evidence used here is epigraphic; literary material from the sixth century is of course
very scarce.
26
Thus, any mention of Athens in the text refers to the city alone, not the entire territory of Attica, as
is common.
27
Access to unpublished pieces can be difficult, even though the staff of various Athenian museums
has been wonderfully supportive. Since none of my requests for access to such material were
granted, it has regrettably been necessary to leave much of the unpublished sculpture in the
storerooms of various Athenian museums and the Ephorias out of the equation.
11
which is appended to this study. Among these are the provenance, type of marble, genre,
iconographic details, patrons and beneficiaries if known, and most importantly, the date.28
The two centuries studied here have been divided into eight periods of twenty-five
years.29
This is a relatively rough division by the standards of sculptural chronology.
However, quantitative analysis requires equal periods, precluding finer, but uneven segments
of time.30 Moreover, not all sculpture can be dated to the decade, but quarter centuries can in
general be established with reasonable certainty. The dates are the result of a stylistic
analysis and a framework of chronology derived from earlier publications, the arguments
from which have been paraphrased extensively on the CD. In most cases, scholars agree on
dates of Athenian sculpture. In some cases, a minority disagrees and a few objects inspire
dissent. In either of the latter two situations, the statue was studied in the museum in
question, circumstances permitting, in order to assess the various stylistic arguments.
Bronze statues have in principle been excluded, but their bases are taken into
account. One reason for this is that while marble sculpture has been analysed by so many
experts that their opinions can be compared, such an approach cannot be used for Athenian
bronzes. The literature is much less extensive, but more importantly, relatively few bronzes
from Athens survive, since many have been melted down over time.31 As a result, a
comparison between the amounts of surviving marble and bronze sculpture would be
unbalanced. Bases for votive bronzes provide a partial solution for this lack. Dowel holes on
many bases, columns and other supports show whether a bronze or a marble statue was
inserted, and inscriptions offer information on the date. In view of the purpose of this study,
28
Precise arguments for the dates of sculpture, especially around the end of the fifth century, are
offered in the Database (Dates tables for votives and gravestones; Motivation field in tables Bases,
Votives and Gravestones).
29
In the construction of the database, a conflict arose between the archaeological practice to date
sixth and fifth-century sculpture to the decade or more narrowly, and the statistical need for
uniform periods that allow quantification. A compromise was found in quarter-century periods.
Where dates overlap two periods, statues have been entered in the quarter century in which most of
the date range falls. The start and end years of each period are intended as approximate
throughout this study.
30
The chart type is formatted in columns instead of lines, so that the impression of a continuous
development is avoided. In a few charts, lines were used because this was the only way to present
multiple data series legibly. Obviously, this does not mean that a continuous chronological
development of the data is intended there.
31
More small bronze figurines are preserved, but these are too often dated with insuffcient accuracy,
and many are from before the sixth century (cf. De Ridder 1896; Touloupa 1991; Scholl 2006).
12
the availability of such information has been the criterion for including bases in the record.32
Thus, trends in bases for marble and bronze sculptures could be traced and a means of
secondary comparison with the sculptural evidence was created. Epigraphic dates were
mostly derived from the third edition of the Inscriptiones Graecae for Attica, and when this
was impossible from older sources such as the work of Raubitschek.33
Since only those bases were included which belonged to private monuments and
which had dowel holes and datable inscriptions, the record of bases is more selective than
that of sculpture. Quantitative analysis would in some respects benefit from more complete
coverage, but the attempt would also bring methodological complications. The more empty
fields a record has, the less useful it becomes for analysis, especially if an accurate date
cannot be established. The selection of bases suits their purpose in the present study, which
is that of a comparative corpus. Furthermore, the criteria for inclusion of bases do not
interfere with the composition of the evidence in this study. For example, they cannot cause
more dedications by any specific group, say the hippeis, to be included in the record, because
there is no link between this group and the preservation rates of inscriptions or of dowel
holes. Thus, general developments in specific aspects of the bases for bronze or marble
sculpture, for example in name types or in dowel holes, are no less representative than other
trends occurring in the sculpture record of this study.34
In the following section, some aspects of the history of Athens in the sixth and fifth
centuries will be discussed. Chapter I presents an overview of quantitative evidence, the total
numbers of votive and grave monuments. Next, the results are connected to the find spots of
sculpture and bases. Once the general development of the preserved sculpture from Athens
in the sixth and fifth centuries has been established and its representativity has been tested,
32
A few bases of which it is unclear which type of sculpture they originally carried have been included
nonetheless, for example, if the inscription on the base was of particular relevance (e.g. a
sculptor’s signature). The inclusion of bases which do not reveal the type of statue would cause the
database to become inefficient in use, in particular because many of these are poorly preserved.
There, the interpretation of the inscription and therefore of the date also becomes problematic,
creating many empty fields in the database (see below).
33
In very few cases, historical circumstances or associated sculpture seemed to weigh heavier and
the IG I3 date has been ignored. Raubitschek’s work has been used with caution, since his
reconstructions are now considered overly optimistic. The Bases table on the CD, especially the
References field, contains the details of literature; IG numbers are in a separate field. For
prosopography, see the Personalia field; for dates, see the Motivation field.
34
Names, name types, and civic identities of persons in this study are based on LGPN and PAA.
13
the investigation will move to the support personnel, sculptors and patrons, and any others
whose contribution warrants their inclusion in the art world of Athenian sculpture.
H ISTORY AND THE SCULPTURE OF A THENS
The art world of sculpture in archaic and early-classical Athens was mainly determined by
internal factors. Those who contributed directly also made the greatest impact on the final
appearance of the sculptures. However, sometimes the wishes of those participating in the
art world might have been influenced, encouraged or hampered by events that in themselves
had nothing to do with Athenian sculpture. This section will offer a brief overview of
historical circumstances which might have affected the production of sculpture in this way.
War would appear to be an obvious factor of influence on the art world of sculpture.
Although the list of wars which Athens engaged in over the sixth and fifth centuries is long,
many of these were fought on foreign territory rather than in Attika itself. Consequently, the
effect would have been advantageous (from a sculptor’s perspective) if the Athenians won,
because spoils of war could pay for monuments, whereas losses outside of Attika affected the
production of sculpture less directly. The two exceptions are also the two largest conflicts in
this period: the Persian wars and the Peloponnesian war. Both wars were fought partially in
Attika, but there are important differences. The Persian wars consisted of relatively brief
conflicts, in which the Athenians were often victorious. In the battle of Marathon in 490,
though in Attika, no damage was done to the city itself. Only in the 480/479 campaign did
the Persians actually destroy the city.35
The latter event created the sculptural debris which constitutes much of the material
of this study and is of such tremendous importance in archaeological terms. But to the art
world of sculpture at the time, the implications of the Persian wars are less self-evident. It
might be argued that the broken votive and grave monuments in Athens had to be replaced
and therefore, the sculptural art world would thrive after the destruction. Alternatively, other
rebuilding work might have taken preference, in which case sculptors might not have plied
their own trade for some time but worked in the general effort of reconstruction.
35
Hdt. 8.51-4; 9.4-6.
14
The Peloponnesian war was an entirely different situation. By the mid-fifth century, Athens
had an empire to lose. There was no internal consensus about whom to fight and for what,
and fundamentally, this war came to Attika for long periods of time. Between 431 and 404,
Athens was intermittently under siege, while much of its countryside was ravaged and its
inhabitants had to be moved inside the safety of the Long Walls.36 Epidemics and disastrous
military operations decimated the population. Economically, the city was in dire straits. All
this indubitably affected the lives of the inhabitants of Athens, including those in the art
world. For the production of sculpture, the situation could have various outcomes. Did high
mortality rates and general depression lead to large numbers of commissions for gravestones
and votives? Or did people have to limit their spending and bury their deceased without a
sculpted monument?
Naturally, the range of choices open to ancient Athenians is much wider than these
few examples. Among the factors of influence on private sculpture, war is perhaps easiest to
trace in a record such as the corpus studied here, but it is by no means the only important
one. From the point of view of sculptors and the support personnel, trade and economics are
essential. Can raw materials, especially marble, be brought to the city? Is enough work
commissioned to sustain sculptors’ careers in one place? Can sculptors be sedentary
workshop owners, or do they have to travel around for a living? Are specialised craftsmen
available for the work of the support personnel? All this depends on the prosperity in Athens
and the efficiency of its trading networks. The influence of such practical matters on
sculpture production is discussed in chapters II and III.
From the patrons’ point of view, wealth was a major factor in any sculptural decision.
A lack of it meant that setting up a statue or stele was impossible. But a difficult question is
how much one needed for a gravestone or marble votive. Was this within the means of the
richest citizens, the pentakosiomedimnoi and hippeis alone, or were zeugitai or thetes also
capable of sculptural patronage? This is a particularly complex matter, because it is
intertwined with the problems of interpretation which surround the identity of the Athenian
elite and the property classes instituted by Solon.37 It is difficult to determine what these
classes precisely entailed and which percentage of the population they constituted. The
questions who in Athenian society ordered sculpture, and how their position in the social
36
E.g. Thuc. 2.18.1-23.3.
37
See e.g. Ober 1989 and 2004; Davies 2004; Mossé 2004; Patterson 20061; Rhodes 2006; Van Wees
2006 (and other articles in that volume, Blok and Lardinois 2006).
15
hierarchy influenced the choices they made as patrons can only be approached in the reverse,
as it were. First the testimony of the sculpted monuments and their inscriptions must be
presented, and subsequently, this has to be combined with the results of recent scholarship
on Athenian society and citizenship.
Criteria for status and citizenship in Athens did obviously not remain the same over
the sixth and fifth centuries. Three decades after Solon’s reforms came the tyranny of
Peisistratos, traditionally dated between the middle of the fifth century and his death in
528/7.38 The impact which his rule had on the lives of the Athenians is hard to assess. The
three main sources closest in time, though not contemporary, are positive about Peisistratos
compared to other tyrants. They mention hardly any killings and few exiles, but speak of
some social reforms, cultural patronage, and a general respect for political institutions as
they were.39 There is no evidence that Peisistratos or his sons changed Solonic legislation.40 If
they took on the building projects which some sources suggest, and if Solon’s laws of
citizenship stayed in force, the attraction of Athens for craftsmen from elsewhere would have
in fact have grown.
After the murder of Hipparchos and the expulsion of Hippias by the Spartans,
Herodotos describes factional strife, stasis, among powerful Athenians.41 Kleisthenes, a
prominent member of the clan of the Alkmeonidai, was the one to take the lead in reforming
Athenian power structures. He changed the traditional division of four tribes to a system of
38
Hdt. 1.59 and 1.64; Thuc. 6.54.5-6; Arist. Pol. 5.1313b 20; also Ath. Pol. 16.1-17.4. Cf. Ober
1989, 67; Patterson 20061, 273-4.
39
For architectural and cultic patronage by Peisistratos and his sons see Shapiro 1989, passim; De
Libero 1996, 94-116; Angiolillo 1997, 26-7, 211-6; Hurwit 1999, 116-7; Boersma 1970, 8-10 and
2000, passim; Camp 2001, 30-9. Further Peisistratean patronage in Andrewes 1980, 107-13;
Snodgrass 1980, 144-6; Hurwit 1985, 262; Manville 1990, 162-73; Cawkwell 1995, 73-86; De
Libero 1996, 94-123 (extensive lit.); Angiolillo 1997, 224-5; various authors in SancisiWeerdenburg 2000, especially Slings, 57-77; Blok, 17-48; and the editor of that volume, 78-106;
Patterson 20061, 274; also Camp 2001, 30-9. For earlier discussions regarding Peisistratos and his
suggested association to Herakles: Boardman 1975 and 1989; Cook 1987; De Libero 1996, 13440, 218; Blok 2000, 22-4 (with bibliography).
40
Thuc. 6.54.6: ‘ta\ de\ a)/lla au)th\ h( po/lij toi=j pri\n keime/noij no/moij e)xrh=to’…; for the rest, the city
was left in full enjoyment of its existing laws…’. See also Patterson 20061, 274.
41
Spartan intervention described in Hdt. 5.62.1-65.5. For the struggle between Kleisthenes and
Isagoras, son of Teisamenes, see Hdt. 5.66.1-2. Also Ath. Pol. 20.1. Cf. also Ober 2004, 264-5;
268-75 for a discussion of partly conflicting evidence about Kleisthenes’ actions: Ober concludes
that Kleisthenes skilfully used the newly developed civic awareness of the Athenians (281-3). Also
Patterson 20061, 275-8.
16
ten tribes based on demes from various parts of Attika.42 Whatever he may have intended
with these reforms, effectively they constitute the beginning of democracy.43 The
combination of a victory over the Persian empire and the consequences of early democracy
must have affected both the city and its inhabitants considerably.
From the late 470s onwards, the Delian-Attic League and subsequent overseas
expansion brought increasing wealth to Athens, while changing the city’s self-image as well
as its internal relations. At this pinnacle of Athens’ power, Perikles entered the political stage.
He was a pivotal figure in the art world, the instigator of the Parthenon with its extensive
sculptural programmes, offering work to masons and sculptors for decades. But he
influenced the art world in a less direct way as well, by changing the conditions of citizenship
under which all its participants lived. The Periklean Citizenship Law proposed that only
children of two Athenian parents would be citizens.44 That this had an impact on the
Athenians’ lives, including those of the city’s sculptors and patrons, is obvious; whether it
also changed the sculpture which they made and ordered respectively, remains to be seen in
chapter IV below.
Perikles died in 429 from the effects of the epidemic which was rife in the city. The
final decades of the fifth century were certainly not the most prosperous or successful for
Athens, yet votive and sepulchral sculpture, as will be discussed below, thrived. This alone
suggests that the relation between the city’s general historical circumstances and the
production of sculpture is not always straightforward and that it changes from one period to
another. It is at this cusp of Athens’ history and its sculpture that this particular art world of
the sixth and fifth centuries can be traced and studied.
42
Hdt. 5.67 and 5.69; Ath. Pol. 20-1. See also Fornara and Samon 2001, 28-9; Mossé 2004, 254;
Ober 2004.
43
Taken further by the reforms of Ephialtes in 462/1. Cf. Patterson 20061, 278.
44
See Patterson 20061, 278-83; Blok 2007 and 2009 [with earlier bibliography].
17
I
A city of statues
1
Q UANTITATIVE
PERSPECTIVES IN SCULPTURE
Approximately a century and a half ago, the Akropolis of Athens yielded an extraordinary find
of votive sculpture, buried there in the fifth century BC. To this day, the impact of this
assemblage on the archaeology of ancient Greece can be felt: by sheer numbers the
collection is impressive, and many of the statues are among the most appreciated of Greek
sculpture. The aims of this study, however, require a broader selection of evidence. So, the
sculpture under consideration in this study was found not only on the Akropolis, but also in
other parts of Athens, such as the Agora, the Ilissos area in the southeast of the city, burial
grounds such as the Kerameikos, and a few scattered sites around Athens (map 1).
At first glance the resulting record offers a straightforward picture (chart 1). Numbers
of votive and grave sculpture from Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries change noticeably
in three of the eight quarter-century intervals in which they have been divided here. The first
of these transitions, at the turn from the third to the final quarter of the sixth century,
presents an increase of over a hundred sculptures, four times the number of the third quarter
of the century (table 1a). This high number falls to a much lower level in the second quarter
of the fifth century, with only nine examples against 109 in the first quarter. The third and
last conspicuous change is a rise from 28 to 133 in the final quarter of the fifth century.
These are the main events in the private sculpture of Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries
as they present themselves in the record of this study. The main question in the present
chapter is how representative this image is of the manufacture levels of sculpture in this
period, and consequently, how reliable the sculptural evidence is.
That the Athenian sculpture record, like any archaeological assemblage, is
incomplete, would be immaterial if it were clear how it relates to the original corpus. The
early fifth-century deposits on the Akropolis and elsewhere in the city contain much, but not
all Athenian sculpture from this period, and we cannot know what proportion of the original
amount is preserved, nor whether material from various quarter centuries has survived to a
similar degree. It can be established where the highs and lows in the extant material are, but
the causes of these changes, the reasons why the record appears as it does, are not obvious.
19
So, any interpretation based on the relation between the history of Athens in the sixth and
fifth centuries and the development of its sculpted dedications and grave monuments
remains out of reach.
In a sense, the large deposit of sculpture from the Akropolis contaminates the
dataset: because the material was buried, it has not weathered and disappeared but is
uncommonly well preserved, most likely in higher numbers than would have been the case
had it stayed above ground for longer. In short, the higher survival rate of the material of the
Akropolis distorts ordinary patterns of preservation of archaeological remains.
The steep fall in the second quarter of the fifth century is often regarded as the
result of the sack of Athens in the Persian wars, after which the city’s inhabitants are thought
to have stopped putting up marble votives and lavish gravestones, because they were
rebuilding the city.45 In this view, attention turned to private sculpture once more after the
situation had settled down and housing was largely rebuilt. Plausible as this explanation
sounds, it is not unproblematic. First, it isolates the sculpture record from roughly 525 to
470 from the surrounding periods, paradoxically suggesting a historical vacuum. Peaks in
archaeological material cannot be considered separate from their chronological context, in
this case a gradual development during the seventh and sixth centuries and the recovery of
sculpture from the mid-fifth century into the fourth.46 Second, in this version of events the
history of Athenian sculpture is forged by the Persian wars: the peak and low which occur
between the last quarter of the sixth and the middle of the fifth centuries depend on the
Akropolis deposit, and because this assemblage is so unusual in character, it cannot offer any
insight in trends in the production of sculpture in sixth and fifth-century Athens. Arguably,
the situation is not quite so barren. Statues and reliefs from elsewhere in Athens and from
the outskirts of the city provide invaluable comparative evidence for the overall development.
Other types of votive or sepulchral material from Athens can provide useful parallels as well.
45
Thuc. 1.89-93. Cf. among other authors Boersma 1970, 44-5; Garland 1985, 121; Hölscher 1996,
187; Hurwit 1999, 138; Holtzmann 2003, 91. Alternatively, there are arguments that marble
sculpture disappeared to make way for bronzes (Holtzmann 2003; 95, Keesling 2003, xiv-xv).
Contra Hurwit 1999, 141, 146-7 who paints a picture of unimpaired votive activity on the
Akropolis in the second quarter of the fifth century BC. Cf. Hurwit 1985, 338-40, and 1989, 65 for
a more moderate take on events.
46
For votive and funerary material from the period previous to the focus of the present research in
Athens see e.g. J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 1977, 26-35, 55-63, 73-81, 109-39; Hurwit
1985; Whitley 1991, 54-74, 87-180. More specifically on the Athenian Akropolis, e.g. Touloupa
1991; id. AM 87 (1972) 57-76; Hurwit 1999, 85-98; Holtzmann 2003, 38-44; Scholl 2006.
20
Even if the influence of the Persian debris should be approached with caution, some of its
features are clear. Most of the debris from the war was deposited sometime during the
second quarter of the fifth century, and the wealth of extant sculpture from the turn of the
century is preceded and followed by periods of relative scarcity (table 1a, chart 1). The
question is, how far back in time does the influence of the Persian debris on the evidence
reach? Does the beginning of the sculpture peak in the final quarter of the sixth century
coincide with the oldest buried Akropolis material? The answer is no. Votives of the first
quarter of the fifth century were found together with older material: deposition has increased
their survival rate, and it would appear – unsurprisingly – that this applies more to votives
from around the Persian wars than for older ones. The next question to ask is whether it can
be established how much of the increase of the last quarter of the sixth century is due to
post-Persian burial, and how much to an increase in the original corpus, i.e. possibly in
production? There may have been less pre-525 sculpture to begin with, because less was
produced. Alternatively, clearances in the sixth century may have disposed of a part of the
sixth-century sculpture.
The Persian wars are of obvious influence in the sculpture highs and lows of the sixth
and fifth centuries BC, in particular around the turn of the century. However, developments at
other times, such as the rise of sculpture during the sixth century, have nothing to do with
the wars. So, one must look elsewhere for causes of the earlier trends in sculpture. The
sculpture ‘scene’ is bound to have been sometimes restrained, at other times stimulated by
events in contemporary history, but clear connections between its impulses and historical
circumstances can rarely be established. Besides external factors, the art world of sculpture
had an internal dynamic of its own. The combination of external and internal factors of
influence on the art world lies at the root of the developments in sixth and fifth-century
Athenian sculpture.
What is conspicuously clear, and apparently a phenomenon from within the art world,
is the popularity which sculpture had gained among the Athenians by the late sixth century.
Stone votives in Athens had started in the later seventh century, but the amount of preserved
votive sculpture stayed modest until much later (chart 1).47 On the whole, the sixth century
47
Martini 1990, 2, 89 (c. 670-650 BC), Ridgway 1993, 4, 41 and Palagia 2006, xiii consider the
middle of the seventh century the start of large stone sculpture in Greece. Detailed discussion in
Martini 1990, 132-200; Ridgway 1993, 21-43. Boardman GSAP 23 sets the beginnings at Athens
around 600; Hurwit 1985, 244 ‘towards c. 560 BC’.
21
bears witness to expanding monumentality and rising numbers of both gravestones and
votives in marble.48 Around the mid-sixth century, numbers of gravestones were similar to
those of stone dedications (table 1a; chart 1). However, the two differ in that numbers of
gravestones remain relatively low for most of the two centuries studied here, while votives
show a dramatic peak. Contrary to votives, gravestones do not develop consistently up in the
sixth century: between about 550 and 525, numbers fall slightly. The dip is very small, and
perhaps no more than a coincidence. Alternatively, it is possible that archaeologists’ views on
the chronology of the Akropolis sculpture play a part in this: the importance attributed to the
Persian debris as a turning point in artistic style may have steered chronology closer to the
early fifth century, drawing material from surrounding periods towards the time of the
destruction of the Akropolis.49
After a lapse in the mid-fifth century, sculpture numbers recover and both votives
and gravestones from the final quarter of the fifth century survive in relative abundance
(table 1a).50 The history of this period is dominated by the Peloponnesian war. As with the
Persian wars in the first quarter of the century, it is unrealistic to let wartime conditions alone
account for developments in sculpture. The timing of the two wars in relation to the sculpture
peaks in the record is enlightening. On the Greek mainland, the Persians first struck in
491/0; they did the most damage to Attika in 480/79. The entire episode was contained
within the first quarter of the fifth century. The Peloponnesian war, on the other hand,
spanned the larger part of two quarter centuries, running on and off between 431/0 and
404/3 BC (in Attika and elsewhere), and this is discounting the preamble to the war in the
second quarter of the fifth century. Furthermore, the Persian war took place at the end of a
prolific sculpture era, when sculpture numbers were evidently just starting to decline (chart
1). By contrast, at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war numbers were rising from a deep
low, a trend which continued and even intensified throughout the war years. Not even in the
48
Boardman GSCP, 90, 183. This also applies to gravestones, at least in the first half of the sixth
century (Richter AGA, 2-3). Regarding the votive monuments: the percentage of smaller korai for
example is quite high in the late archaic period but since they were placed on columns and pillars,
the whole monument would have been quite impressive. Cf. Jacob-Felsch 1969, 15-7; Kissas 2000,
19-20; Karakasi 2001, 147; Keesling 2003, 12.
49
If this has happened, evidence for this phenomenon might be found in the sculptural and
epigraphic chronologies of style: see section II.2. also Hurwit 1989, 73; Keesling 2003, xv, 42-55
for a more detailed summary of the discussion on the relation between epigraphy and sculpture;
Stewart 20081 and 20082 for style.
50
In casu 56 votives and 76 gravestones in the database. See table 1.
22
fourth century does the evidence show any onset of decline, in contrast to the situation
around the Persian wars.51 In short, the first of the major wars seems to end on the eve of a
lull in sculpture production, whereas the second war seems without consequence for
sculpture, allowing marble votives and gravestones to bloom throughout its duration and into
the fourth century.
The two wars surely evoked different responses among the inhabitants of Athens,
thus changing sculpture and the sculpture trade as well. Yet there must have been other
factors, more inherent to the production and use of Athenian stone votives and gravestones
and less intertwined with the events of fifth-century history. After all, sculpture itself
changed during the two centuries, and so must have the Athenians’ views on it. A good
example is the rise of bronze, which apparently became a popular alternative to marble,
notably for votives.52
In this chapter, two types of analysis will be applied to the material: a statistical and
comparative method. The data record which was collected for this study has been submitted
to these two methods first in its entirety, second, according to function (votive or sepulchral),
and last, divided by provenance.53 The aim is to investigate, in so far as possible, to which
extent the trends in the preserved sculpture are representative of actual quantities of
sculpture produced in the sixth and fifth centuries. To this end, quantities of votives and
gravestones will not only be compared to each other but also to numbers of their respective
supports. Where the amount of preserved sculpture allows it, statistical analysis will be
applied. Finally, non-sculptural material from Athens may shed some light on which patterns
are typical for sculpture, and which are more general phenomena. Thus, this chapter will
51
Bergemann 1997, 159-79 lists naiskos and so-called ‘Bildfeld’ stelai from the end of the fifth
century and in the fourth. His sources are: Scholl 1996 for the latter; Conze AG; and Clairmont CAT
for general overviews. Although the provenance of the pieces is not listed in Bergemann’s
catalogue, a summary count shows that all of Attika produced more than 180 grave stelai in c.
390-360, just over 340 in 360-330 and nearly 140 in 330-300. Some of these are from the city
itself. The high numbers of all Attic material justify the notion that sculpture from the city, too, did
well in the fourth century. Some of the evidence is presented in table and chart A.
52
Especially for votive sculpture, bronzes would be ideal for comparison. This would require a reevaluation and narrowing down of the dates, which are not always specified in publications (cf.
Keesling 2003, xv, 77-85; for the earlier period they are available: Scholl 2006).
53
Tables and charts present the total numbers of votives and gravestone per quarter century; the
analysis on which these results is based, e.g. the arguments about dates and other details of each
sculpture or base, are listed in the database on the CD.
23
examine the parameters within which the preserved material reflects the art world of
sculpture in sixth and fifth-century Athens.54
V OTIVE SCULPTURE AND BASES
Besides sculpture proper, 288 supports of various types (table 1a) have been included in this
study, mostly because they preserve sockets showing the kind of object they once carried –
statues, stelai, tripods or basins – and more importantly whether the object was in bronze or
marble.55 Supports for marble statues can arguably be counted for as many marble votives or
gravestones: lack of attribution of statues to bases means either that the statue which a base
carried is not preserved, or that the statue or the base or both are in too poor a state to trace
the connection.56 Of the 288 bases, only 42 examples are sepulchral (diagram 1; tables 1a-b)
and no less than 246 are parts of dedications. Almost all of the latter are from the Akropolis,
which will be discussed in the next section of this chapter.
The picture of all votive bases closely resembles that of the corresponding sculpture,
though the two are not identical (chart 1b). A basic statistic analysis establishes a significant
difference in development between votive bases and votive sculpture.57 Similar to the latter,
54
The aim of this discussion is not to establish once and for all how Athenian sculptural material
should be interpreted. Such an objective is not only unachievable, but would also require much
wider research than falls within the scope of this study. The goal in this chapter is a description of
the main trends in the record of votives and gravestones. Some tentative interpretations are to
further discussion.
55
Cf. pls. 1b-c, 16c, 43d. In 26 cases the material of the supported object (votive or sepulchral) is not
clear, though the type of sculpture is. For the completeness of the bases in the dataset see
Introduction, p. 13 f.
56
It is often impossible to connect sculpture fragments to a base, but in this study bases and
unattributed fragments are used nonetheless. This is because first, most Athenian sculpture was
studied so thoroughly in the 20th century that if a link is possible, it is likely to have been found,
and second, problems of undiscovered matches can be avoided by analysing bases and sculpture
as separate groups. It is admittedly inevitable that some fragments whose link to an existing base
or statue remains unknown are counted double. There are c. 20 ascertained combinations of
marble votive statues and bases; e.g. stele Akr. 1332 (cat. V 164) with base Akr. 13250, cat. B 70.
Of grave monuments, only one has a known base: NYMM 16.174.6 (cat. G 34) with NYMM 12.158
(IG I3 1196, cat. B 188). KM P 1051 (cat. G 22) and KM P 699 (cat. G 105) are sometimes attributed
to the Xenophantes base (KM I 389, IG I3 1218, cat. B 4), but neither attribution is certain.
57
A chi-square test on the totals of sculpted votives and all votive bases (including those for nonmarble votives) results in a value of 71.171 (df = 7, p < 0.00). See table C.1.
24
numbers of bases for marble dedications increase considerably from the third to the last
quarter of the sixth century. But while the quantity of sculpted votives starts to decrease early
in the fifth century, that of bases first grows (table 1b). Compared with sculpture, numbers of
votive bases come down less abruptly in the middle of the fifth century, from 32 in the
second quarter of the century to 15 in the third quarter. After that, bases for marble
dedications all but vanish.
Although the overall trend in votive sculpture differs statistically from that in votive
bases, there are similarities too. Peaks and lows in votive bases are apparently less extreme
than those in sculpture. Additionally, there seems to be a slight delay compared with votive
sculpture. This last point is most evident at the turn from the sixth to the fifth century, when
votives go down, yet bases still rise (chart 1b). They follow the downward trend a quarter
century later. Another example appears in the third quarter of the fifth century, when
numbers of votive bases are still falling, while votive sculpture has already adopted a new and
upward direction. In the bases for marble statues from the later fifth century, the divergence
is only small, since they are preserved in low numbers. However, if bases for votives in other
materials (bronze or unspecified) are included, the pattern becomes clearer.
An explanation for the votive bases’ tendency to run behind on sculpture could
hardly originate in a consistent delay in the development of bases in relation to sculpture.
After all, why would the Athenians increase production of sculpture but not of the necessary
pedestals? Thus, this trend cannot have its roots in antiquity itself. Rather, the difference
could be caused by the separate stylistic chronologies of archaeology and epigraphy: as the
material would suggest, a tendency of haste in the former or tardiness in the latter.58 This
would undermine the representativity of the data in the record of this study considerably. It is
important to play the devil’s advocate and entertain this possibility for the moment, to find
out if the difference between bases and sculpture comes from the stylistic frameworks of the
two disciplines.
One way to establish a chronological discrepancy is to extend the date range into the
fourth century. If bases are dated consistently later than sculpture because of different
stylistic frameworks, numbers of bases would have to increase in the first quarter of the
fourth century, after the sculpture has done so rather steeply in the late fifth (chart 1).
Although fourth-century material is beyond the scope of this study, the trend in bases in the
58
Hurwit 1989, 73 rightly remarks that epigraphy also uses style to date inscriptions; yet the stylistic
analysis is directed at different objects and uses other criteria. Cf. Keesling 2003, 50-2.
25
late fifth century shows no signs of an approaching upward turn. A quick glance at some
relevant corpora seems to confirm the conclusion that no return of bases is afoot in the
fourth-century material.59 So, no evidence for a divergence in stylistic frameworks can be
found here. If any discrepancies occur, the material suggests they must have been short-lived
and unsystematic.
Bases with known and preserved statues constitute another means of establishing
whether archaeology dates differently than epigraphy. In fact, sculpture and inscriptions of
such ‘complete’ monuments rarely have inconsistent dates:60 there are only five examples
among the preserved monuments in this study. One of these, a statuette of Athena, is in a
sculptural style suggesting a later date than the lettering on her base (pls. 2a-b), while the
other four cases are exactly the reverse.61 Evidently, the deviations in scholarship are minor:
five is a very small number in a total of 408 stone votives (table 1b).62 Considering that not
even all deviations are similar, i.e. are consistently later or earlier, a systematic difference in
dates of marble votives and the corresponding inscriptions is again hard to contend.
Thus far, the votives in this study have been compared to the record of complete
monuments (including bases), and to fourth-century material. Besides this, comparisons with
older dedications and with other types of votives are useful for investigating the stylistic
frameworks of the late-archaic and early-classical periods.63 Particularly interesting is the
development of bases for bronze votives, because they have the advantage of being a clearly
defined separate group: though directly related to the bases of marble votives, they have a
distinct development of their own. One might expect this to be similar to bases for marble
59
Cf. table A; chart A. Fourth-century gravestones survive in great numbers but rarely with bases.
Cf. above n. 51, Bergemann 1997, 159-79 (catalogue). Also Conze AG; Meyer 1993, 104 and
passim (the latter for inscriptions). Precise dates are rarely given, but gravestones dated in bulk to
the fourth or later centuries are abundantly preserved (IG ii-iii2 e.g. pp. 549-688 and 699-866).
For votives a similar rule applies: see IG I3.
60
See above n. 56 for an overview of sculpture with known pedestals or bases.
61
Athena: cat. V 38, Akr. 136. Only the lower legs and feet of the statue are preserved. For details
see the database. The other four are Akr. 399, 425, 499 and 702 (cat. V 185 – cat. B 48; cat. V
334 – cat. B 45; cat. V 189 – cat. B 74; and cat. V 115 – cat. B 166). All of the corresponding
inscriptions are commonly dated a quarter century later than the statue, except Akr. 399 (c. 575550 BC): its base, Akr. 456, 3759 (IG I3 631) with possibly Aeschines the potter inscribed as the
patron, is usually dated in the final quarter of the sixth century.
62
All votive statues (338) and bases for marble votives (92), excluding bases with a preserved statue
(22). Bases for bronzes or unspecified statues were in this case left out. See table 1b.
63
Cf. Hurwit 1989; Steskal 2004; Stewart 20081 and 20082 for the beginnings of the classical style
at this time.
26
votives, if the Athenians were equally fond of the two materials throughout the sixth and fifth
centuries. However, since far fewer bronze votives survive than marble ones, connections
between preserved bronze sculpture and their bases are much rarer than for marble statues.
The date of bases for bronzes can rarely be compared to the actual votive which it carried,
and a consistent chronology is harder to establish.
Bases for marble and bronze votives evolve with some notable differences. First is the
start of the bases for bronze votives. In the third quarter of the sixth century, the first base
for a bronze dedication, probably a vessel, appears in the material (table 1b).64 After this,
numbers rise rapidly to 37 in the final quarter of the sixth century and to 57 in the early fifth
century.65 If a similar evolution of bases for bronze and marble is expected, the drop of the
latter after the first quarter of the fifth century should also occur in bases for bronze. This
proves to be the case (table 1b), but far more slowly for bronze bases than for marble bases.
The 19 examples of bases for bronze votives are half of all the votive material from c. 475450 (table 1b) and so add considerably to the discrepancy between marble votive sculpture
and all votive bases in the fifth century which was discussed earlier.66
Later in the century, bases for bronze votives rejoin those for marble, albeit only in
general direction, as both types gradually decrease towards the end of the fifth century. Six
bases for bronze votives from that period survive (table 1b).67 Bases for marble votives are
gone before then, their last preserved example dating to the third quarter of the fifth
century.68 By contrast, votive sculpture is soaring at this time. Neither group of bases follows
its exuberant recovery in the fifth century, and it was shown above that nothing indicates a
reversal of the bases’ fortune in the fourth. Since a systematic lateness in the dates of bases
compared to dates of sculpture would require the bases to follow the recovery of sculpture,
64
Cat. B 225, EM 6222, IG I3 597. Most sources date it just after the mid-sixth century, around 540.
65
Including part of a pillar for a silver statuette: cat. B 246, Akr. 18439, IG I3 698.
66
See above p. 24. It could be argued that post-Persian material was dated up into the debris period
(for example, Tölle-Kastenbein 1983); and that sculpture from the second quarter of the fifth
century was dated towards the bulk of votives and gravestones at the end of that century.
However, there is no sign of such a pattern in the bases; they clearly follow a different trend. It is
impossible to preclude all distortion in dates devised by archaeology, epigraphy or other
scholarship. However, in the material of this study and at the present state of research, a
chronological shift cannot be established, and certainly not to a degree where adaptation of the
framework of dates is warranted.
67
Cat. B 104, AM I 3398, base; cat. B 105, EM 10330, base; cat. B 143, EM 6296, frs. of base; cat. B
146, EM 6297, fr. of base; cat. B 176, Akr. 13264, fr. of base; cat. B 177, Akr. no. ?, fr. of base.
68
AM I 5128, IG I3 876, cat. B 136.
27
the idea that epigraphic chronology is systematically later than the stylistic sequence of
sculpture can be dismissed. The second suggestion, that a shift between the epigraphic and
sculptural chronologies would come to light in the bases for bronze, can be rejected as well:
what differences there are do not amount to a systematic or recognisable pattern.
Summarising, the data in this study show nothing to suggest that the differences
between votive sculpture and votive bases around 500 BC (chart 1b) are more than a onetime phenomenon. It is neither repeated nor continued before or after. Thus, the trends of
bases and sculpture in the record cannot be explained by diverging chronological
frameworks. The bases for bronze votives simply start later and continue somewhat longer
than those for marble. In the second quarter of the fifth century, bases for bronzes reach
their largest proportion in the entire period studied here, almost half of Athenian votives
(table 1b),69 while marble votive sculpture falls to a level similar to that of the start of the
sixth century.70 This may seem to suggest a consistent, and therefore scholarship-induced
dating down of the bases, but no such pattern can be found later on in the fifth century. By
then, both bases for bronzes and marble have disappeared, in votive as well as in grave
monuments; sculpture itself fully recovers and remains abundant in the next century, while
bases do not.
Although this overview to an extent refutes the looming notion of swerving stylistic
chronologies and thus supports the representational validity of the data, the differences in
development of bases and sculpture proper still require an explanation. If there is no pattern,
and if the existing variation cannot be attributed to various methods of dating, then what is
going on? Does Athenian sculpture become baseless?
Anticipating on a later chapter, it should be noted that the peak in votive sculpture at
the end of the fifth century consists for a large part of reliefs (tables 1a, 5a).71 Many, though
69
Namely 19 out of 39: 48,7%.
70
E.g. eight statues from 475-450 compared to seven from 600-575: the latter cat. V 1, Akr. 592;
cat. V 62, Akr. 582; cat. V 122, Akr. 190; cat. V 156, Akr. 225, 226; cat. V 222, Akr. no. ?; cat. V
223, Akr. 3869; cat. V 283, EM 6521a-b. From 475-450: cat. V 158, Akr. 695; cat. V 160, Akr.
599; cat. V 245, NMA 4802; cat. V 250, AM S 218; cat. V 306, EM 6542; cat. V 314, EM 6556; cat.
V 315, EM 6536; and cat. V 338, EM 6058. The date of burial of the debris and the spread of the
material from the first half of the fifth century are relevant to this: see below p. 49 and further. It
should be noted that the few votive statues from c. 475-450 still constitute about a quarter of all
sculpture at the time. Since gravestones are so rare in this period, this means that they
encompass almost a quarter of all monuments.
71
For a more detailed analysis of stelai and reliefs, below ch. IV.3.
28
not all of these are rather small and carry simple inscriptions on the architrave or on a rim
below the relief scene. With reliefs, there is in theory little or no need for a pedestal. They
may be put in slots cut out in rocky ground, or set up on existing pedestals in the crowded
sanctuaries, which may have lacked space to give each new dedication its own place. Such
considerations may explain dwindling numbers of bases at the end of the fifth century.72 Low
numbers of bases for bronze votives at the time actually support this idea. The popularity of
small votive reliefs could well have affected the market for more expensive, larger bronzes,
or economic hardship may have put such bronzes out of reach for many Athenians. It will be
argued in the following chapters that the favourite types of votives in the archaic period were
freestanding stone statues, which were always placed on pedestals of some kind. It would be
impossible to keep them upright without supports. Moreover, bases, pillars and even
columns are conveniently shaped for reuse in construction. Undoubtedly, many supports
from the late fifth century have disappeared into walls, foundations or lime kilns.73 But the
disappearance of both statues and bases at the time when reliefs emerge seems more than a
coincidence.
An interesting aspect of the material comes to light in the percentages of the bases
for marble and bronze votives (table 1b). Until the end of the sixth century, those for marble
are ahead, but in the final quarter the bronzes’ bases overtake them. From then on, the latter
predominate until the general decline of bases at the end of the fifth century.74 By then,
bases for bronze votives constitute a hundred percent of all bases in the dataset. In practice,
however, this entails six bases; the percentage of bases for bronze votives with respect to all
votives, including sculpture, is only ten; and the impossibility of including a remotely
representative number of votive bronzes severely interferes with the analysis. Rather, the
waning number of bases supports the argument on genres mentioned above, that not all
votive reliefs may have been set up on a pedestal or base.
72
There are other reasons, e.g. visibility, for putting reliefs on pedestals or pillars. Van Straten
1992, 257-9 argues that votives could be nailed to walls, or inserted in them, or hung from
ceilings. Cf. below, ch. IV.6.
73
If bases are not inscribed, it is near impossible to date them, and many of this group are in all
likelihood in storage in Athens without being published. Since these pieces are inaccessible and
no estimates of them exist, they could not be taken into account in the current analysis.
74
Of course, numbers are in most periods rather small for a relative comparison of percentages; the
approach mainly works for the period around c. 500 BC.
29
Differences between bases and sculpture may be explained by, for example, the rising
popularity of reliefs, or the preference for smaller bronzes or terracottas. Since bronze
became a favoured material for votives later than stone, its heyday might be expected later,
too. The decline of bases for bronze votives was indeed kept at bay about a quarter century
after that of other bases, but whether this is sufficient evidence for a ‘bronze takeover’ is
doubtful.75 In such a scenario, bases for bronze votives would continue to do well in the later
fifth century.76 However, the decline of bases is a general phenomenon: it applies equally to
bases for bronze and marble.77 As will be discussed in the next section, the circumstances of
conservation on various Athenian sites play an important role in this.
It can be concluded that the dates of the material in the present record are not
shifted due to different scholarly traditions in archaeology and epigraphy, nor because what
might be called the lure of the Persian debris. If the dates can thus be accepted more or less
in accordance to the time of production of the monuments, the following must be
considered. The gap which is often presumed to have occurred in the dedication of votives in
Athens, and in particular on the Akropolis in the second quarter of the fifth century, turns out
to be non-existent.78 True, the overall number of votives, namely extant votive sculpture and
bases for bronze and marble votives (excluding those supports of which a corresponding
statue is preserved) falls dramatically from the first to the second quarter of the fifth century.
However, a total of 39 examples of votives or their bases from that second quarter are listed
in the record (table 1b), which is not a small number in the wider scope of these two
centuries. Rather than a break in dedications in Athens in the years after the Persian wars,
this merely suggests a reduced level of activity, and most notably so in comparison with the
75
Conclusions about the popularity of bronzes as private votives are premature at this point. The
theory that bronzes take over as the material for votives in the fifth century will be discussed
below, p. 26 and p. 59.
76
Assuming that marble votives make way for bronzes in the fifth century, as e.g. in DAA, 479,
Ridgway 1969, 108 and Martini 1990, 279. Pliny notes the more ancient origins of marble
sculpture compared to bronze (HN 36.4) and the large number of bronze workers after Pheidias,
who according to Pliny was the first artist of consequence in bronze (HN 34.19). Cf. Keesling
2003, 78 for a discussion on materials.
77
Generally, it is interesting to see that bases for bronzes in the record of this study do not reach
the same level as bases for marble votives in the sixth and fifth centuries. To see the meaning of
these developments in bases more fully, the fourth-century material would have to be included.
78
As the suggested result of the Oath of Plataia, by (among other authors) Raubitschek DAA, 479;
Boardman GSCP, 22, 90-1. Contra Ridgway SSGS, 6 (not particularly with regard to the Oath);
Hurwit 1999, 141; Ferrari 2002, 14; Steskal 2004, 212-6.
30
high-strung demand for sculpture in the decades before. In view of the losses which can be
expected just after the destruction of a city, a total of 39 extant votives is quite respectable.
The comparison of votive bases and sculpture above has shown that the chronologies
of epigraphic and sculptural style in the sixth and fifth centuries are sufficiently stable to
consider the dates in the record representative. This step was necessary before the record
can be used in searching for interpretations of trends in the material, as well as individual
cases. A further check on representativity can be achieved by analysing the gravestones of
Athens. One might expect some degree of similarity in the trends of votives and gravestones.
After all, it is reasonable to assume that many variables of production, placement and
commission of Athenian sculpture apply equally for both.
G RAVESTONES AND BASES
Sepulchral material survives in less well-balanced proportions than votives, with only 42
remaining bases to 175 grave sculptures (table 1a, chart 1a) listed in the record. Numbers of
gravestones are relatively constant compared to the dramatic peaks in votive sculpture. From
the first until the final quarter of the sixth century, gravestones hover around 20, only rising
to 28 in the last quarter (table 1b).79 In the fifth century, numbers drop to six examples in the
first, then to one in the second quarter.80 Contrary to older Athenian grave monuments, the
material from the early fifth century often seems quite modest both in original concept and in
preservation. For example, three out of six pieces from the first quarter of the fifth century
are fragments of simple basins.81 Not until the end of the fifth century do gravestones return
to prominence, reaching 77 examples in the final quarter. The second half of the fifth century
is the only time in two hundred years when extant gravestones outnumber votives.82
79
Nine exampes of 600-575: cat. G 5, NMA 71; cat. G 6, NMA 3372, 3965; cat. G 9, AM S
287/1677/530/1739/ 1908; cat. G 19, KM P 1698; cat. G 20, KM I 461; cat. G 29, KM P 315; cat.
G 96, KM P 1133; cat. G 104, KM
no. ?; cat. G 135, KM no. ?
80
Dated 500-475: Lion AM S 1942, (function not entirely certain: cat. G 106); head of youth cat. G.
81, KM P 1455; cat G 131, KM P 1615-1616; cat G 132, 1617; cat G 134, KM P 1618; kouros fr.
cat. G 87, KM P 267. From 475-450 is the stele EM 10225, cat. G. 106.
81
KM P 1615-1616, 1617 and 1618 (see previous). For the status of basins as monuments, see
further ch. IV.3.
82
From 450-425: 12 votives, 16 gravestones; from 425-400: 77 gravestones, 56 votives.
31
Grave sculpture from the final decades of the fifth century may abound, corresponding bases
are absent: the dataset contains no more than two sepulchral bases from the entire fifth
century (table 1b).83 The more numerous sixth-century examples more or less follow the
development of marble grave sculpture at a lower level.84 The similarity is only superficial,
though. In the third quarter of the sixth century, numbers of gravestones fall slightly (chart
1c), while their bases rise continuously, from five examples in the second quarter to 13 in the
next, and to 18 in the final quarter of the sixth century.85 The deviation, however small, is
important, for it shows that the slightly lower number of sepulchral sculptures from this
period may just as well be due to the circumstances of preservation or to coincidence as to
an actual decrease.
A further point of consideration is the following. The dip in sepulchral sculpture in
the third quarter of the sixth century is quite minor (table 1b). Only one base from the sixth
century can be matched to a statue, and therefore the rest can cautiously be added to the
total of monuments (table 1a).86 The result shows a consistent rise in grave monuments
throughout the sixth century. This being the case, one historical discussion can be closed:
Peisistratos’ possible curbing of expenditure on gravestones, in order to prevent display by
rivalling aristocratic families, cannot be the cause of diminishing numbers of sculptural
monuments. The archaeological evidence of grave monuments offers no decrease to
corroborate such an attempt at the time of his reign or that of his sons.
In the fifth century, funerary bases seem to disappear practically overnight from the
record. This may be connected to another aspect of the gravestones’ history, namely the shift
in type of grave monument in the two centuries. Sixth-century monuments are often
impressive, for example, tall stelai with capitals and sphinxes on top or bases with large
kouroi; but at the end of the fifth century, most gravestones are reliefs of modest size and
often mediocre in execution.87 Many have no sculpted details but just an inscribed name of
83
Cat. B 103, EM 10635; and cat. B 128, EM 10254.
84
Only one sepulchral base the record might possibly have carried a bronze: cat. B 175, EM 10255,
IG I3 1202, dated to the third quarter of the sixth century.
85
From 575-550: cat. B 26, KM P 1001; cat. B 29, EM 10650; cat. B 188, NYMM 16.174.6; cat. B
190, EM 10364; cat. B 268, KM A 359; cat. B 288, KM no. ?
86
The base for the grave stele of Chairedemos, cat. B 188, NYMM 16.174.6; cat. G 34, NYMM
12.158, AM S 1751, NMA 4808. IG I3 1196.
87
Reliefs have a sculpted decorations, stelai are smooth. Though these are the criteria for listing in
the database, ‘grave stelai’ is used for reliefs and stelai in the text of this study. If only stelai are
meant, this is indicated.
32
the deceased, and the front face of the stele may or may not have born a now faded painting.
In some cases, names have just been roughly scratched into the surface of a summarily
worked stone, or even a modified stone that was originally made for some other purpose, for
example a roof tile.88 Obviously, these small slabs are less in need of a base or support than
the large stelai and figures from the sixth century. Monumental gravestones from the fifth
century often were set up in a peribolos, incorporated in larger structures.89
In conclusion, two trends stand out in the grave material. First, grave sculpture
became on average less monumental in the fifth century, which is among other things
reflected in the gradual disappearance of the bases. Second, the number of extant
gravestones is almost three times higher in the last quarter of the fifth century than in any
earlier period. It looks as if in gravestones of the late fifth century, numbers prevail over
monumentality. Considering the ongoing Peloponnesian war, the evacuation of Attic citizens
into the city, and the epidemics that hit Athens during the final decades of the fifth century, it
is to be expected that many sepulchral monuments were needed.90 More surprising is the
lack of gravestones from the earlier fifth century. For if the inhabitants of Athens found the
resources for honouring their dead during the Peloponnesian war, why would they not have
done so just after the Persian wars? Another source of puzzlement is the fact that the
inhabitants of crowded, exhausted, war-ridden Athens in the late fifth century made such
efforts to obtain gravestones, while comparatively, their attention for votives seems to have
been less intensive.
V OTIVE AND GRAVE MONUMENTS : A COMPARISON
The preponderance of votive material over gravestones in this study is beyond doubt; the
question is whether sculpted dedications outnumber gravestones throughout the research
88
Cat. B 148, NMA 2588, c. 425-400.
89
E.g. Hegeso (cat. G 62, NMA 3624) though the peribolos is from the fourth century, and Eupheros
(cat. G 46, KM P 1169). It is likely that the fourth-century ‘Bildfeldstelen’ would often have been
set up like these two examples. Moreover, the thicker naiskoi which developed in the fourth
century could also stand without bases. Most of the periboloi in Athens are from the late fifth or
the early fourth century (Garland 1982). See also Bergemann 1997, 158-79 and 181-2 for
naiskoi; 183-210 for a catalogue of periboloi (cf. Morris 1998).
90
For this and other questions about patrons’ motivations to order sculpture, cf. below ch. IV.4-5.
33
period, or this is the result of concentrations in parts of the two centuries. In other words, do
gravestones follow the development of the votives and their prominent peak around 500 BC?
For most of the sixth and fifth centuries, trends in votive and grave sculpture run in the same
direction, but their total quantities differ. These variations occur in particular in the period of
the approximately fifty years around the turn of the century. With votive sculpture topping
gravestones by 85 and 97 in the last quarter of the sixth century and the first quarter of fifth
(table 1, chart 1), this period is at the root of the total difference between votives and
gravestones. The end of the fifth century also shows a considerable deviation, but there it is
the gravestones which surpass the votives by 21. Apart from these three quarter-century
episodes, differences between votives and gravestones are minor.91
This pattern does not change much if bases are included (charts 1b-d).92 Variations
between all votive and all grave monuments in stone, including bases for marble sculptures,
are most conspicuous at the end of the sixth century and in the first quarter of the fifth
century. In the first three quarters of the sixth century, the difference between votive and
grave sculpture is not affected much by adding bases. However, larger gaps tend to widen
when bases are taken into account (table 1b, chart 1d). For example, 106 votives from the
first quarter of the fifth century grow to 133 when bases for marble are included and to 177
with those for bronze votives. Gravestones from the same period increase from 28 to 46 with
bases, a considerable rise, but bases for bronze obviously cannot add anything in this case.
Similarly, seven more votive than sepulchral statues survive from the second quarter of the
fifth century. The gap grows to 17 when bases for marble votives are included, and with all
bases reaches 38. This pattern begins to reverse in the third quarter of the century, when
marble votives are overtaken by sepulchral marble.93
91
The differences per period are: 600-575, 2; 575-550, 0; 550-525, 1; 475-450, 7; 450-425, 4.
92
In a test on total numbers of votives and gravestones including all bases except those of which
the statue is preserved, over the eight periods between 600 and 400 BC. (table C.2), the chisquare value is 179.043 (df = 7, p < .000). In other words, there is a statistically significant
difference between the development of these two groups. For votive and grave sculpture only
(table C.3), the chi-square is 106.092 (df = 7, p < .000), i.e. significantly different as well, as is
the result of the complete marble monuments (table C.4), which excludes the bases for bronzes
and duplicates, but includes all other materials: chi-square 127.677, df = 7, p < .000). The
divergence of grave and votive material at around 500 BC, and in the late fifth century are the
cause of this result. If these periods are excluded, the significance disappears, but at the same
time the sample then becomes so small that the test is no longer sufficiently reliable.
93
Votive sculpture from 450-425: 12, with one base for a marble votive; gravestones 16.
34
Thus, the differences between dedications and gravestones are enhanced by bases until the
mid-fifth century. This does not apply in the second half of that century, when gravestones
outnumber dedications:94 the preserved bases for bronze votives from this period
compensate for this difference slightly.95 They bring the total of votive monuments to 62 in
the final quarter (table 1b), while sepulchral monuments remain at 77. A quarter century
earlier, bases for bronze votives had even compensated for the entire difference between
sepulchral and votive monuments.96 All this shows that already large differences around the
turn of the sixth to the fifth century increase further when bases are thrown into the
equation, largely because of the higher survival rate of votive bases, and especially of those
for bronzes. The pattern applies until approximately the middle of the fifth century (chart
1d); but it does not work for the later part of that century.
So far, the analysis has shown that numbers of sculpted votives and gravestones are
fairly constant in the first three quarters of the sixth century (table 1b; chart 1c). Differences
between the two groups are small and inclusion of bases in this period changes very little,
since both votive and sepulchral bases rise slowly and sculpture quantities are stable. From
the final quarter of the sixth century onward, the trends of votives and gravestones diverge.
The gravestones and their bases continue at a relatively steady pace. Although the final
quarter of the sixth century offers a respectable amount of grave sculpture (in sepulchral
bases it has the highest number of any quarter-century period studied here), these numbers
cannot quite match 75 extant votive bases and 113 votive statues (table 1b; chart 1d). This
situation continues in the first quarter of the fifth century.
Two things emerge from this survey of the figures. First, the quarter-centuries in
which strong change occurs in the sculpture record (the turn of the sixth to the fifth century,
the second quarter of the fifth and the final quarter of the fifth century) coincide with the
times when differences between votives and gravestones are largest, both proportionally and
in absolute numbers. Combined with the fact that numbers of gravestones are steady, except
94
E.g. 21 more gravestones than votives from the final quarter of the fifth century.
95
With a total of 27 examples against 18 gravestones. Cat. B 137, EM 6295, is for an unspecified
statue; and cat. 136, AM I 5128 for a marble votive. The other 13 bases for votives from this
period are for bronzes. From 425-400: cat. B 177, Akr. no. ? ; cat. B 176, Akr. 13264; cat. B 104,
AM I 3398; three in the Epigraphical Museum, cat. B 105, EM 10330; cat. B 143, EM 6296; cat. B
146, EM 6297. In the record of this study, no sepulchral bases from this period are preserved.
96
For marble votive statuary, just one base from the second half of the fifth century remains: cat. B
136 (previous note), a base for a marble statue, perhaps by Kalamis (450-425). Only one base is
for an unspecified gravestone: that of Menesthos, EM 10254, cat. B 128. Cf. below n. 209.
35
for the peak of the late fifth century, it appears that it is the votives which cause most of the
difference. The statistical analysis confirms that the significant divergence is mainly rooted in
the material from the turn of the sixth to the fifth century, a majority of which are votives.
Thus, it stands to reason that the higher than normal preservation frequency of the Akropolis
votives around 500 BC is the main cause of the diverging trends in votives and gravestones.
Considering the background of these late-archaic dedications, namely the Persian
debris, it seems safe to say that from an archaeological point of view, this votive peak is the
anomaly. The increase in the final quarter of the sixth century does not reflect the normal
preservation frequency for the Athenian material, but a much higher one. The high number of
extant dedications from the sixth and fifth centuries draws mainly from the one large peak of
votives around the turn of the century, and this difference between votives and gravestones
increases when bases (mostly votives from the Akropolis as well) are included. Even though
the large quantity of gravestones from the end of the fifth century compensates somewhat
for the overall surplus of votives, and despite generally similar levels of sixth and fifthcentury votives and gravestones outside of the peak periods, the predominance of the
dedications over sepulchral monuments is unchallenged.
Yet even if the debris material thus constitutes a distortion, the great quantity of
dedicated sculpture from the last quarter of the sixth and the first quarter of the fifth century
reflects how popular these votives were in that period. Regardless of the difficulties in
interpreting these numbers, sculpture production was evidently high during the late sixth and
early fifth centuries. It is impossible to know how much of the sculpture from the Akropolis
actually went into the deposits, but in all it may have been a larger portion of the original
assemblage than is commonly assumed. After all, practically the entire Akropolis has been
excavated.97 Furthermore, at the time when systematic excavation started, the deposits are
likely to have still contained relatively much of what was buried there in the fifth century. If
so, the Persian debris may be one of the rare chances to approximate the production rates of
sculpture in Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries. The peak of dedications around the turn
from the sixth century to the fifth could be more representative of real manufacture rates
than is traditionally thought.
97
According to Korres 2002, 181, some remnants of original stratigraphy are preserved in pockets
along the North Wall of the Akropolis: excavating these could offer a firmer view of the
stratigraphic sequence and the possibility of a representative sculpture record.
36
This is, of course, a paradox: the debris peak is an anomaly, yet at the same time, it may be
representative. The answer lies in definitions. Within the context of an average survival rate
of sculpture in an ancient city which has been inhabited to the present day, and thus offers
limited possibilities for excavation, Athens’ gravestones represent a default development. In
principle, their pattern cannot be taken as a reflection of actual production, because too
much was lost and cannot be recovered. By contrast, the very clear and abrupt rise and fall of
votive monuments roughly around the Persian wars constitutes an abnormal preservation
rate: it deviates from what can be expected, namely a trend like that of the gravestones.
It would obviously be unwise to attempt to approximate absolute figures from such a
distant period, but some aspects of the material are hopeful. The proportion of preserved
votives from the Akropolis deposits is higher than normal, and the layers in which they were
discovered have been left relatively intact until excavation. As will be argued below, it is
unlikely that the Athenians put damaged votive sculpture anywhere else than in the deposits
on the Akropolis. If this is the case, the assemblage may cover a relatively large part of the
original collection of archaic sculpted monuments. Consequently, the debris would then not
only reflect the sequence of developments in sculpture through time, but also could be fairly
representative as a closed assemblage from this period.
The discussion in this section has traced the relation between the two groups of material, one
of which is preserved according to more average circumstances, whereas the other was
submitted to extraordinary burial. However, the representativity of the preserved votives of
the Akropolis compared to the original quantity of dedications at the time of deposition is
only partly necessary to the purposes of this study. An analysis within the limits of each of
the quarter-century intervals, for example, of provenance or of type of marble, would not
require proof that the preserved material as a whole reflects exactly what once stood on the
Akropolis. Nevertheless, the representativity of the extant material is an interesting issue.
The remainder of this section will therefore explore the following question: which
conclusions, if any, can at this stage be drawn about the rise and fall of the manufacture rate
of sculpture, and its reflection in the votives and gravestones of the sixth and fifth centuries?
It is conceivable that in a large sacred compound such as the Akropolis, dedications
were taken down every now and then, as is known of bronzes.98 Taking this into account, the
98
Aleshire 1992 (and other authors in Linders and Alroth 1992).
37
abrupt rise of sculpture in the last quarter of the sixth century could in theory reflect three
scenarios. In the first, the Athenians might have cleared the Akropolis intentionally just
before the final quarter of the sixth century, for example to make room for a building
programme. A second possibility is that the material has been lost, because survival chances
would be generally lower for material further removed in time from the moment of burial.
The third and last option is that the level of production was actually lower before the final
quarter of the sixth century. In the latter case, the increase in sculpture would represent an
extremely steep rise in the demand for sculpture. Such abrupt popularity seems rather
unnatural and would require further explanation.
A similar argument applies to gravestones, albeit with an extreme loss of favour
instead of rising numbers. The fact that there is only one preserved gravestone from the
second quarter of the fifth century in the data record suggests that far fewer gravestones
were produced than in the archaic period, although this inference has to be nuanced by the
influence of, again, the circumstances of preservation.99 Nonetheless, it can be assumed that
production of gravestones was low at this time. The one example from the second quarter of
the fifth century, however, precludes an argument ex silentio, namely the idea that
production of gravestones came to a complete halt after the Persian wars. The conclusion
from the material would be that the production of gravestones was sometimes very slow in
the fifth century, yet it was uninterrupted.
Although tables and charts thus far have conveyed quite a few dissimilarities in the
developments of votives and gravestones, their depositional histories are not unalike. Votives
were interred on the Akropolis as parts of foundation deposits, for ramps and as fill for the
containment walls; gravestones served much the same purposes in the Themistoklean wall of
the second quarter of the fifth century. Theoretically, this could have led to parallel levels of
preservation of gravestones and votives in that period. The nature of a defensive city-wall is
that it covers many kilometres, mostly underneath the modern city and out of reach. As a
result, too little is known about the complete structure and its possible use of the material in
cemeteries around the city. One could argue that hypothetically, an inventory of sculpture
from the entire wall would even the score with votives, provided, of course, that similar
quantities had existed in the first place. Given the actual extent of excavation, it makes sense
that gravestones in the dataset are few compared to the sculpture from the votive deposits of
99
EM 10225, see above n. 84.
38
the late sixth and the early fifth centuries. However, this cannot be taken as evidence of lower
production rates of sepulchral sculpture, only of smaller quantities of preserved and
excavated grave monuments.
One phenomenon strays notably from the general pattern in the material: the boom
of gravestones in the final quarter of the fifth century, pushing them substantially ahead of
votives for the first time in two centuries. At that moment, there were no major reasons of
deposition, conservation or construction, as there were in the early fifth century, which could
have ensured a high survival rate of this kind of sculpted material. Thus, in the absence of a
‘Peloponnesian debris’ from the early fourth century, the steep rise is puzzling. It suggests
different raisons d’être for the peaks of votives around the turn of the sixth to the fifth
century, and of gravestones at the end of the fifth. The function of the sculpture may play its
part in this, and will be investigated below. First, another topic requires some attention: as
has become clear from the above, the provenance of votives and gravestones is a key element
in the interpretation of their development. The next section will examine this further.
2
P ROVENANCE :
SANCTUARIES AND CEMETERIES
The provenance pattern of Athenian votive sculpture (table 2a, chart 2; map 2) develops
along lines which are similar to those of its total amount, as is to be expected with a majority
of votives coming from one site: the Akropolis. For gravestones, trends in provenance are
less consistent and less uniform (chart 2a). The main find spot for gravestones is sometimes
the Kerameikos (in the first half of the sixth century and the first quarter of the fifth), at
others the Agora (in the third quarter of the sixth century). The only provenance which
dominates with larger numbers of gravestones is the ‘rest of Athens’ (Athens Other) in the
final quarter of the sixth century and the second half of the fifth (table 2a). This category
comprises scattered locations in the city, which for want of a better solution are treated as
one group in this study.
Gravestones are relatively scarce, so that variations in provenance appear rather
more conspicuous than they actually are. Their bases are even fewer (chart 2c): before the
fifth century, two-thirds of the sepulchral bases in the record come from the Kerameikos.
The equivalent sculpture from the site comes to 38 percent of all gravestones. However, the
most prolific period of the Kerameikos, the final quarter of the sixth century, has only 11
39
bases (table 2b). That seems somewhat meagre in comparison with numbers of bases for
votives from the Akropolis in their best period, namely 69 from the final quarter of the sixth
century and 100 from the first quarter of the fifth. Rendered in percentages, the impression
of an Akropolis monopoly is confirmed (table 2a): more than three quarters of all votive
sculpture and about 90 percent of all votive bases were found on the Akropolis or on its
slopes. In grave monuments, Athens Other is the largest provenance category with 47
percent. Thus, funerary sculpture is much more evenly spread over various sites in the city
than dedications are.
Of course, percentages are not very representative when numbers are as low as in
the sepulchral bases of sixth and fifth-century Athens. But what is already clear from this
survey is that the Kerameikos is the main source of funerary bases, but much less so of grave
sculpture (charts 2a-c). This situation and the supremacy of the Akropolis in the provenance
of votives will be the two main issues in the following section. The votive material will be
compared to pottery and terracottas from the Akropolis, the gravestones to some of their
counterparts from Attika. Bases for bronze sculpture will shed some light on the role which
this material played on the various sanctuaries and cemeteries of Athens.
T HE A KROPOLIS
Material from the Akropolis dominates the votives of Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries
as well as the record of this study in general (table 2c). After relatively constant numbers
during the first three quarters of the sixth century, the next two periods provide 96 and 94
examples respectively. In the second and third quarters of the fifth century, numbers tumble
to five in each period, before rising again in the final decades of the fifth century (chart 2).100
The record contains 28 Akropolis votives from the last quarter of that century. If the 12
100
Dated 475-450: archer, Akr. 599, cat. V 160; diskos, EM 6058, cat. V 338 and three frs. of basins,
EM 6536, 6542 and 6556; cat. V 315, 306 and 314 respectively. Dated 450-425 are the group of
Prokne and Itys (Akr. 1358, cat. V 165), although contested (see the Votive Dates table in the
database); two reliefs with goddesses, Akr. 2478 and 2508, cat. V 252 and 251 respectively; a
head (probably of Athena), Akr. 635, cat. V 155 and the head of a youth Akr. 699, cat. V 249.
From the Asklepieion in this period is a relief with a woman, NMA 2544 Χ∆, cat. V 249. For the
sculpture of the transitional period between archaic and classical on the Akropolis, see especially
Stewart 20081.
40
dedications (table 2a) from the late fifth-century Asklepieion on the southern slope of the hill
(map 6a) are included, this number rises to 40.101 Straightforward as they may seem, these
numbers must be approached with caution. Since the circumstances on the Akropolis,
especially the Persian debris, play such a key role in the absolute chronology of Athenian and
Greek art, the evidence from this site has to be weighed within the context of its history as
much as is possible, for example, by comparing it with other available quantitative data. The
representational validity of trends in sculpture can only be established in connection with the
events of their time and the excavation history.
The Akropolis deposits known as the Perserschutt are a bane and a blessing to
archaeology (map 3a).102 Were it not for this assemblage, the archaic votive sculpture of
Athens would be largely beyond our knowledge. Nonetheless, the material seems to raise
more questions than it can answer. Especially in light of the archaeological potential of a site
like the Akropolis, there is a frustrating lack of information. Over the last decade or so,
several comprehensive studies have been published recounting and re-analysing the
exploration of the Akropolis in the past two hundred years.103 More or less systematic
excavations on the site were started in the first half of the 19th century by L. Ross.104 Between
1836 and 1855 he published reports of his campaigns, which he hoped would uncover the
foundation layers of the Parthenon and shed light on details of its construction. To this end
he excavated trenches between the Parthenon and the south wall of the Akropolis. However,
he became aware of an older layer below the one he was aiming for, and had it searched
thoroughly (maps 3c-d).105
101
The Asklepieion record is counted as part of the Akropolis, but kept separately in the charts for
research purposes later on. There is an exception: a pillar for a bronze statue, EM 4469a is from
the Asklepieion, but since it dates from before the foundation of Asklepios’ cult on the south
slope of the Akropolis and may well have been dedicated to Athena, it is counted as part of the
Akropolis bases. Cf. also cat. B 252 in the database.
102
Some recent accounts of the Perserschutt and views in the terminus ante quem: Holtzmann 2003,
47, 88-100; Hurwit 1999, 141, 145-9; id. 1989, passim; Schneider 2001, 46-55.
103
Lindenlauf 1997, 46-54; Steskal 2004, 39-146; Stewart 20081, 20082. Also Bundgaard 1976;
Hurwit 1989.
104
Somewhat more randomly by Count Choiseul-Gouffier and Fauvel in 1787; then by Lord Elgin
between 1800 and 1802. The Akropolis was officially declared an archaeological site by the
Bavarian-born king of Greece, Otto, in 1834. Hurwit 1999, 98, 298; Schneider 2001, 47; Steskal
2004, 39 n. 50.
105
Ross 1855, 104. The word used by Ross is ‘durchwühlen’. Lindenlauf 1997, 52-3 gives the exact
date of January 4th 1836 (Gregorian calendar). What Ross considered lesser material (tiles,
damaged building blocks, and ‘shapeless and worthless marble lumps’), he had brought to the
41
Many of the fragments from this layer, dated by Ross before the construction of the
Parthenon, showed traces of burning, in particular some red-figured sherds.106 Just above his
pre-Parthenon layer, Ross uncovered stone chippings (maps 3c-d).107 Because of the ‘Persian’
date of the layer below, he believed that this material was building debris of Kimonian date.
Although he realised that his burnt level had to be connected to the Persian destruction of
the Akropolis, his find received surprisingly little attention in contemporary archaeological
circles and for some time afterwards.108 It was not until the extensive excavations by P.
Kavvadias109 in the 1880s revealed spectacular discoveries of sculpture from the debris that
the issue was put at the forefront of scholarly attention.
At the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century, a new enthusiasm for preclassical Greek art led to a greater interest in the monuments destroyed by the Persians.110 As
north side of the Akropolis, in order to dispose of them over the north cliff. Cf. Steskal 2004, 3946; Stewart 20081, 395-406, esp. 403-4.
106
Ross ibid.; Lindenlauf 1997, 53 n. 57; Steskal 2004, 43-6; Stewart 20081, 378. For sculpture
damaged by fire, pls. 3c-d. Cf. Hurwit 1989, 344 n. 133; Korres 1995, 107-8; Steskal 2004, 16580 (fire and damage by the Persians). Most important among the sherds are probably the
fragments of a plate by the Brygos painter (ARV 2 385 no. 229; Steskal 2004, fig. 12). Ross notes
that this piece proves that at the time of the Persian wars, red-figure painting was practiced
(140). This became an important fixed point in the chronology of pottery.
107
Between the foundations of the south-east corner of the Parthenon and the top of the south wall
of the Akropolis (known as K1, Bundgaard 1976, 79-81). Cf. Lindenlauf 1997, pl. 3.1; Bundgaard
1976, 75 fig. 42, 80 fig. 44 and pls. A, B.2, K.4. The latter dates this wall to 454-448, whereas
Lindenlauf considers it much older, probably pre-Persian. She argues among others that the fill
behind K1 does not contain any marble chips until quite late (only in the ninth layer do poros
fragments, marble chippings etc. start to occur). Cf. Lindenlauf 1997, 67-9; Tschira 1972, 158231; Korres 19971, 225; Steskal 2004, 40-2; Stewart 20081, 395-407 (Kimonian date: the fills are
from construction rather than from the Persian destruction).
108
This to the point where notwithstanding Ross’s clear reference to the Persians in the report (Ross
1855, 104), later authors doubted that he had realised what he had found: Studniczka, AM 12
(1887) 372. See also Lindenlauf 1997, 52 n. 54.
109
Kavvadias and Kawerau 1906; republished in Bundgaard 1974. A large collection of sculpture was
discovered between 1863 and 1866 when the museum was built on the south-eastern outcrop of
the Akropolis, in the remains of Building IV). Among the finds were the torso of the Kritios boy
(Akr. 698, cat. V 51) and parts of the Moschophoros (Akr. 624, cat. V 2). The 1860s excavations
were conducted by K. Pittakis; slightly later by P. Evstriatidis. The latter composed the excavation
report in 1878, and his find list of that time is not consistent with reports contemporary with the
excavation, as observed by H. Brunn (JdI 1864, 83-9). Cf. Bundgaard 1974, 9-25; Hurwit 1989,
44-55; Lindenlauf 1997, 54; Steskal 2004, 46-9; Stewart 20081, 389-401.
110
Hurwit 1989, 54. Lindenlauf (1997, 54-5) argues that the fact that the classical material had
mostly been exhausted in publications and the extensive excavations on the Akropolis in the
1880s played its part.
42
a result, the term Perserschutt evolved and the importance of the debris for absolute
chronology became clear. The discovery of, among other things, 14 archaic statues near the
north wall of the Akropolis by Kavvadias especially fired the imagination (maps 3b and 5,
location B).111 Although the location of the find, north-west of the Erechtheion, is known,
even here it is uncertain exactly which statues come from it.112 Places on the Akropolis which
are less conspicuous in terms of sculptural or other finds are worse: sparsely documented,
their exact locations and contents are often lost.113 The fact that the chronology of the
Akropolis stratigraphy is so hotly debated indicates both how conjectural and how
fundamental it is.114
For the present study, this raises complications on two levels. The first is the find
context of the sculpture in the data record of this study: this is important not only because of
the chronology of early-classical sculpture (as illustrated in the korai on plates 2c-d), but
even more so because of the moment when they were interred or built into other structures
on the Akropolis or elsewhere in the city. A scenario in which the Athenians immediately rid
the citadel of all debris differs essentially from one where they left the site as it was for
several decades, only tidying up what was necessary for day-to-day subsistence, in this case
for use of the sanctuary. This matters a great deal because the treatment of the debris is
likely to have influenced dedication practices at the time, including erection of sculpted
votives. The second issue is the reliance on the Akropolis debris for the chronology of ancient
Greek sculpture.115 Since the latter point looms rather ominously over the sculptural record
studied here, the discussion will begin there.
111
Kavvadias and Kawerau 1906, 23-32. Other sources cite 9 korai, because 9 are still identifiable
(overviews in Bundgaard 1974, 14; Steskal 2004, 49-53; Stewart 20081, 381-9; cf. next note).
This appears to be the only ‘pure’ Persian debris deposit on the Akropolis: the contents is archaic
(Stewart 20081, 406).
112
Lindenlauf 1997, 70 n. 179. E.g. Hurwit 1999, 141 lists the Nike of Kallimachos (Akr. 690, cat. V
19) as one of the finds at this spot, while Brouskari 1979, 125-6 gives her a location south-west
of the Erechtheion. Pieces of the column and Ionic capital of the statue were found scattered over
the Akropolis. Cf. also cat. B 13.
113
Lindenlauf 1997, 54; Cf. Stewart 20081, 406; Bundgaard 1974, 10-4, 27: in Kaweraus drawings
and the accompanying reports, find spots of sculpture are rarely indicated, or very sketchily. Find
spots in the database are indicated as accurately as publications allow, which often results in the
unspecified provenance ‘Akropolis’.
114
Cf. Hurwit 1989 on the Kritios Boy (Akr. 689, cat. V 49); Marx 2001, the Endoios Athena (Akr.
625, cat. V 90); Steskal 2004, passim; Stewart 20081 and 20082.
115
Style as a means to define masters’ hands gives invaluable information about sculpture practices.
However, when used to establish chronology, there is a risk of circular argument. A solid
43
The chronology of ancient Greek sculpture depends on datable fixed points and stylistic
comparison with material from those cases. Apart from late-archaic treasuries in Delphi,
especially the one which the Athenians built probably around 490-480 BC,116 dated material
includes an inscription in Athens from the archonship of Peisistratos, grandson of the tyrant,
the dedication of which is described by Thucydides.117 Neither the date of this inscription’s
nor of others (for example, allegedly the same Peisistratos’ inscription on the altar of the
Twelve Gods, or the fragments of the Tyrannicides’ base)118 are undisputed. The only real
chronological fixture in Athens is the construction of the Parthenon.119 Therefore, the second
quarter of the fifth century remains a vexing problem. It is generally accepted as the
beginning of the classical period, and there is a widely shared assumption that sculpted
votives in marble fell out of favour with Athenians at this time. Explanations range from the
oath of Plataia to emerging democratic sensitivities; in some views, it was because marble
was replaced by bronze as the material of choice.120
Something approaching a definite answer to the question of the fall in dedications in
the second quarter of the fifth century would require analysis of all the arguments regarding
every single votive from the Akropolis, including excavation details; in most cases, this
information is simply lost.121 One statue for which a full investigation of the circumstances of
discovery did prove possible is the Kritios Boy (pls. 3a-b), a keystone in the chronology of
early-classical sculpture. In his study on this subject, J. Hurwit asks how the Kritios Boy
should be dated in relation to its find spot and the Persian debris, and how this date fits into
framework is hard to achieve because of the paucity of originals. See among other authors
Schrader AMA; Fuchs (in Floren) 1987, 47-8, who dates the Kritios boy based on workshop and
artist; more recently, Steskal 2004; Stewart 20082.
116
Boardman GSCS, 159-60, 210-4; Stewart 20082, 595-601.
117
Thuc. 6.54.6; Tölle-Kastenbein 1983, 574 n. 9; Arnusch 1995, 135-8; cf. Stewart 20082, 608.
118
Altar of the Twelve Gods: Gadberry 1992, Hesperia 61, 447-81; Arnusch 1995, passim; Camp
2001, 32-5; Stewart 20082, 583. Tyrannicides inscription (AM I 3872): Wycherley 1957, 93-8;
Stewart 20082, 583, 601.
119
Even so, the lower date of the Parthenon foundation is much debated, e.g. Bundgaard 1976, 134
dates 455 BC, which Hurwit considers too late (the ‘generally accepted date’ (Hurwit 1989, 45 n.
4) being eight years later).
120
Raubitschek DAA, 479; Hurwit 1989, 64-5; Stewart 20081, 391. To which extent the material
record actually supports this view will be considered later on. Raubitschek speaks of an earlier
decline of marble as material for votives on the Akropolis. Cf. below p. 59. On the Oath in this
context: Steskal 2004, 212-4 with lit.
121
Lindenlauf 1997, 47. M.M. Lee, AJA 1996, 395 lists find spots of several korai; cf. Stewart 20081.
44
the chronological framework; in other words, whether it is late archaic or early classical, or
when one style period ends and another starts.122
The discovery of the Kritios Boy is surrounded by uncertainties. Presumably, the
torso was uncovered south-east of the Parthenon, on or near the site of the former museum
by Evstriatidis, while the head was found between the museum and the south containment
wall of the Akropolis.123 Relying on the available information about find spots, style and
technical details of the statue as well as the literary sources, Hurwit attempts to establish the
date of the statue independently of the question whether its style should be classified as
archaic or classical. He offers three possible scenarios.124 In the first, the Kritios Boy is prePersian (though in classical style, which therefore is considered to start before 480), was
destroyed by the Persians and lay around on the Akropolis until it was buried during the
building activities of the mid-fifth century BC.125 The strongest arguments for this are the
wear on the statue and in particular on the damaged areas of the neck where the head was
cut off.126 A second suggestion is that it was decapitated by accident (Hurwit notes that this
is the least appealing version) and that this happened when the statue was set up soon after
the Persian wars, leaving enough time for weathering before deposition. Hurwit’s third
possibility is that the Athenians cut off the head intentionally, perhaps in a ritual killing of the
statue just before burying it.127 The main flaw of this theory lies in wear on the breach
surfaces. If the statue was purposely decapitated and buried immediately after, wear on the
breach surfaces is hard to explain.128 And why would they have left a sculpted sacrificial
victim lying around?
122
See above n. 114.
123
Cf. above n. 109. Hurwit 1989, 53-5, esp. 55 n. 40-41. The head was found much later than the
torso. Also Stewart 20081, passim; id. 20082, 584-5. On the Akropolis, the Propylaia kore (Akr.
688, cat. V 44) was found in similar stages and pieces (cf. database).
124
Hurwit 1989, 78-80.
125
The Persians might also have cut off heads to ‘kill’ the statues and disempower them. Cf. Houser
1988, passim; Stewart 20081, 388.
126
Rolley 1994, 339-43, fig. 330; Stewart 20081, 387-8, 394 for the argument of forceful
decapitation. For detailed analysis of weathering and related arguments see Hurwit 1989, 63-4.
127
Hurwit 1989, 62 (decapitation), 79 (burial). Stewart 20081, 379 agrees with this view; in the case
of bronzes, the heads would have been preserved while the torsos were melted down (analogies
in Olympia, ibid. 387-8).
128
Hurwit 1989, 80. He also indicates that the erosion of marble surfaces is hard to predict, though,
and that in this case, the wear could explain both the first and the last theory of events.
45
All theories regarding its burial aside, Hurwit concludes that the style of the Kritios Boy
cannot be anything but early classical or Severe, and: 129
‘…had it been found anywhere but on the Acropolis, with its (perhaps exaggerated)
reputation for containing vast deposits of pure Perserschutt, there would perhaps
have been little hesitation about dating it after 480.’
Justified as this remark may be, the evidence should be regarded in a wider perspective. The
transition from archaic to classical sculpture in Athens hinges on the 480s because of the
fixed date of the Persian wars, the deposits, and their reputation. This is not so much
because the Persian wars ‘liberated’ Greek art, which would rather anachronistically presume
direct political and conceptual transference of war circumstances onto artistic style.130 The
combination of excavation data (if properly presented) and detailed relative chronology can
provide a less finely netted, but nonetheless usable framework for the transition from one
period to the other. The classical style in sculpture was, so to speak, in the making for a good
part of the later archaic era. Besides the obvious differences, there is also strong continuity
from archaic to classical sculpture.131 The precise overlap of the periods is hard to establish
both at the beginning and the end pf the transitional period. Although the possibility of
dating sculpture with an accuracy of ten years is appealing, it is not always most effective.
Ultimately, Hurwit decided on a date between 479 and 475 BC for the Kritios Boy:
post-Persian, but allowing enough time to create wear on the surfaces before it disappeared
into the ground.132 In the quarter century intervals used here, such a date does not even
move the statue into the following period: it remains where authors who prefer to blame the
129
Ibid. Hurwit makes similar comments about the Angelitos Athena (Akr. 140, cat. V 61) found with
e.g. the Moschophoros, Akr. 624, cat. V 2 (ibid. 65). The latter has caused less controversy among
scholars, though Ridgway 1970, 31 and 34-5 discusses the unreliable excavation context. Cf. the
Votive Dates table, cat. V 61.
130
Boardman GSAP, 85. Hurwit 1989, 70, 78 disagrees. For extensive discussions of the stylistic
transition from archaic to classical, see e.g. Ridgway SSGS, passim (for a discussion of scholarship
work up until 1970, ibid. 4-8), and most recently, Stewart 20081 and 20082.
131
E.g. Boardman GSCP, 20-3, 26; Hurwit 1989, 78; Ridgway SSGS, 93. Hurwit’s assumption (1989,
65) that only few votive statues would remain ‘immediately pre-Persian’ if controversial pieces
were left aside, however, seems to be defied by the data –depending on the definition of
‘immediately’.
132
Hurwit 1989, 80. Which possibility is most likely for the decapitation and other damage to the
statue he does not elaborate on in the final conclusion.
46
Persians for its decapitation have put it. The same advantage of quarter centuries becomes
evident in the study by Tölle-Kastenbein. Her concentration of chronology-defining events
around 500 BC would not affect the dates of this statue nor of others in this study very
much.133 In short, the chronology applied here may be somewhat cruder than is possible, but
it avoids certain problems which are hard to solve at the present state of research.
Nonetheless, the question how votives which were destroyed in the Persian wars were treated
in the interlude between the wars and the start of the fifth-century building programmes is
relevant. After all, how the Athenians handled their own and their ancestors’ demolished
votives reflects their attitudes towards the sculpture in this study.
The Akropolis is the main source of votive sculpture in Athens in the sixth century,
primarily because votives in the Persian debris had a better chance of survival.134 From this
point of view, it may come as a surprise that the relative prominence of the Akropolis votives
extends into the period after interment of the debris (table 2a). The percentage lies around
half of all sculpted votives during the second, third and last quarters of the fifth century, a
situation which is unexpected for two reasons. First, as has been mentioned above, no largescale deposit from the fourth century is known that could explain such high survival rates of
sculpture from the Akropolis or any other part of the city from the century before. So, if the
predominance of the Akropolis in the sixth century is explained by deposition in the mid-fifth
century, no deposit can account for high percentages of Akropolis votives later in that
century. Second, marble dedications are widely believed to have declined from the latearchaic period on, because bronze became the preferred material.135 This suggestion can be
investigated by means of the marble sculpture from the Akropolis combined with bases for
bronze and marble votives; larger bronze statues are, of course, mostly lacking.136
133
Tölle-Kastenbein 1983, esp. 576-7 tab. 1, 584. These events still fall into the quarter century
where they are positioned in the present study. The system proposed by Francis and Vickers
1981, shifting everything down 30 years would, if correct, move the statues out of their generally
accepted dates, and out of the ones used here. However, I agree with the arguments put forward
by Hurwit 1989, 73 n. 125, Tölle-Kastenbein 1983, 575, Shear 1993, and especially Steskal 2004,
142-6 that such a shift would be quite unlikely.
134
It should be noted that the marble dedications are also considered part of the Persian debris, too.
E.g. Hurwit 1989, 64-5 states that ‘…statistically, a marble dedication stands a better chance of
being pre-Persian.’
135
For example, Robertson 1987, 164; Jacquemin 1999, 37; Keesling 2003, 78; Osborne 1998, 163;
Marconi 2001, 258; Stewart 20081, 387; cf. also above n. 76.
136
See above n. 52. Very few bronzes are sufficiently preserved, which would seriously hamper a
comparison. For an overview of major Akropolis bronzes, Stewart 20081, passim.
47
Before the sixth century, the Akropolis votives had mainly consisted of bronze statuettes,
appliques (for wooden furniture etc.), cauldron fragments and pottery,137 of which precise
find spots are even harder to trace in the excavators’ reports than sculpture.138 In general,
pickings of marble votives on the Akropolis seem to be rather slim in earlier times, and this
continues into the first decades of the sixth century. A few early examples of marble
dedications are an inscribed base dated to the mid-seventh century and some lamps from the
end of that century or from the early sixth.139 After seven extant marble dedications from the
first quarter of the sixth century, things begin to improve in the second quarter.140 It is only
toward the end of the sixth century, however, that votive sculpture really takes off. The
question is, why is this the case?
Assuming that the chronological framework is adequate for the purpose at hand, one
possible explanation is that all sixth-century votive monuments in the record have survived
solely because of their deposition in the mid-fifth century.141 If this is the case, fewer marble
dedications would have been made in the first three quarters of the sixth century than in the
next fifty years. Alternatively, it has been suggested that Peisistratos tried to curtail votives
and maybe also gravestones, to keep aristocratic rivals from expressing their power and
wealth.142 For the grave monuments, it was already argued above that the material shows not
lapse corroborating such intervention; but the votives require further analysis in this respect.
The possibility of increased production will be explored below as well, but first the influence
of deposition deserves some attention: if the Persian debris, in the widest sense of the term,
137
E.g. Holtzmann 2003, 37-40; Hurwit 1999, 94-5; Schneider 2001, 72-5.
138
Holtzmann 2003, 38; Hurwit 1999, 95. All the early bronze statuettes were found in the
excavations in the 1880s according to Holtzmann with as far as the context goes the same result
as for the other material.
139
Hurwit 1999, 95, n. 58 for the inscription (IG I3 589, Jeffery LSAG 71, 76 no. 7) and n. 60 above
for the lamps (also Holtzmann 2003, 44).
140
Votives bases for marble in the record: two from c. 600-575: fr. of capital, EM 6213 (cat. B 224);
fr. of column, EM 6216 (cat. B 1). Of 575-550: Akr. 3826 (cat. B 30) fr. of cavetto capital; Akr.
Mag. 9982 (cat. B 278) fr. of Lesbian capital, for kore?; the Moschophoros Akr. 624 (cat. B 59). Of
550-525, seven votive bases from the Akropolis. One, EM 6222 (cat. B 225) is thought to have
carried a bronze vessel, the other six probably marble votives. In the case of Akr. 596, cat. B 62
this is certain: the kouros Akr. 665, cat. V 48 survives.
141
Cf. Hurwit 1999, 35: ‘…skewed by unusual circumstances of preservation and loss.’
142
Holtzmann 2003, 48 thinks it more likely that the emerging lower classes took over the
aristocratic custom of setting up marble dedications. Schneider 2001, 98 agrees. Contra Shapiro
1991, 631. Also above p. 32.
48
were the reason for the state of the evidence presented in this study, it would be unnecessary
to look any further for an explanation.
Developments in the votives from the Akropolis (as in the dedications from Athens as
a whole) remain modest in numbers until the final quarter of the sixth century (chart 2b),
when numbers on the Akropolis rise steeply to 96 sculptures, then to drop marginally to 94
in the quarter after 500 BC. The slow ascent in the earlier sixth century appears as an
extension of the paucity of votives in the seventh century BC. If Athens’ wealth is assumed to
have grown over the sixth century,143 an increase in valuable votives is to be expected; but
nothing like this happens until the final quarter. When the rise finally does occur, it is so
dramatic that it seems beyond any natural development such as, for example, a greater
demand for sculpture. This rather suggests the influence of the Persian debris, though other
causes present themselves, as will be discussed shortly.144
Votives dedicated on the Akropolis forty or fifty years before the late-archaic peak
may well have been still in situ, i.e. where they were erected, when the Persian wars started. If
so, they were accumulated in the debris deposits later in the fifth century. If this is correct,
the question arises as to what happened to the earlier material, dating back half century and
more before the outbreak of the war (chart 2)? Did no such material exist, and do the peaks
of the late sixth and early fifth centuries simply reflect an increase in production at that
time?145 Or was the early sixth-century material lost before the Persian wars started, either
on purpose or by accident? If the latter is the case, what happened to this sculpture?
143
E.g. as a result of Solon’s reforms or Peisistratean rule: see Lavelle 2005, 1 and passim; Van Wees
2006, 381; Foxhall 1997, 123, 128. Cf. also Steskal 2004, 197-204. For an overview of Athenian
economic growth in the sixth and fifth centuries: French 2006 [repr. 1964].
144
If there had been an unofficial ban on votives until the last quarter of the century, i.e. until
Peisistratos’ death, the rise could have occurred quite abruptly. No such thing is known from any
sources, however, and there are other reasons why this is highly unlikely. Holtzmann (2003, 46,
48) also remarks that a ban by the Peisistratids is improbable in the light of the archonship of e.g.
Kleisthenes and Miltiades during their reign, who were, after all, from rivalling families: they could
hardly have been kept from dedicating. Cf. AM I 4120, IG I3 1031.
145
Terracotta and stone architectural fragments, as well as the Hekatompedon Inscription (IG I3 4, EM
6794), suggest the presence of several smaller structures on the Akropolis (Tölle-Kastenbein
1993, 48 and 63 locates them on the south side, within what she interprets as the open-air
Hekatompedon area; cf. Lipka 1998). They date from the second quarter of the sixth century until
the classical period. Some may have been shrines (cf. Korres 19971, 227) but others probably
were treasuries similar to Delphi or Olympia. Since, unlike the latter, the Akropolis was not a PanHellenic sanctuary, it is uncertain who commissioned them. If the patrons were aristocratic
families of Attika, it could explain their apparent lack of interest in sculpted votives: these
treasuries were especially suitable for more costly votives, which could be stored inside. Klein,
49
One obvious explanation would be a clearance of the Akropolis, for example because of
building activity. During the sixth century, at least two monumental temples were built on the
hill, and it is well possible that others were started or already existed (maps 4a-b).146 The
chronological evidence, however, is problematic. A new temple may have been planned in the
late sixth century, but traces of its foundation hardly remain on the site.147 Some scholars
interpret this as evidence that there was no second temple on the south side of the Akropolis,
only a new one on the site of the so-called Dörpfeld foundation (the so-called Archaios Naos,
map 4a), or even just a renovation of the existing building in that location.148 Others argue
that the Parthenon foundations were built over, and therefore erased or covered, all traces of
earlier construction, including a temple of Athena which had been under construction on the
south side of the Akropolis at the time. This pre-Parthenon is usually dated in the 480s, just
after Marathon.149
A new temple of Athena on the Akropolis, for example, on the Dörpfeld foundation,
and begun during the reign of the Peisistratids, could account for a clearance of larger private
AJA 95 (1991), 335 (abstr.); Hurwit 1999, 112, 115-6; Camp 2001, 32; Schneider 2001, 74;
Holtzmann 2003, 72-5.
146
For various archaic temples on the Akropolis before and just after the Persian Wars, see among
other authors: Dinsmoor 1947; Plommer 1960; Korres 19971, 221 fig. 1; Lipka 1998; Hurwit
1999, 111-5; Osanna 2001, 336-7; Ferrari 2002; Stewart 20081, 401-2.
147
Holtzmann 2003, 76, 80. Korres 19971, 227 discovered a slight deviation (3.5º) in orientation in
some layers of the west and south of the Parthenon foundation, as well as rock cuttings with a
similar position. He also shows that a small naiskos on the north side of the Parthenon was
aligned with the deviant foundation layers and both are aligned with the Archaios Naos. In his
reconstruction of events, an ambitious temple was started around the turn of the sixth to fifth
century (the technical characteristics of which are more similar to the Peisistratid Olympieion than
to the later Parthenon), was subsequently downsized after Marathon and subsequently abandoned
for the Periklean Parthenon (Korres 19971, 237-40).
148
See e.g. Schrader JdI 43 (1928), 54-89; Dinsmoor AJA 51 (1947), 109-51; Korres 19971 is
arguing for two temples, notably a large south temple on the Akropolis. The second is now
commonly dated just after 490 according to Stewart 20081, 401; 407. The most stringent defence
of a one-temple scenario is proposed by Beyer AA 1974, 739-51 and AA 1977, 44-74. For an
overview of the discussion see Plommer JHS 80 (1960), 127-59; Korres 19971, 218-25; Hurwit
1999, 106-12; Holtzmann 2003, 75-81.
149
A recent overview of arguments in Stewart 20081. Regardless of the (quite convincing)
archaeological evidence for this date, it would be remarkable that the Athenians started to build
this temple in the immediate aftermath of the battle of Marathon, suggesting that they feared no
second attack from the Persians. Furthermore, Korres 2002, 184 points out that the base of the
Older Parthenon shows thermal damage that in his view must have been caused by the fire which
the Persians set on the Akropolis.
50
dedications.150 The suggestion is that first, some of the monuments would have had to be
moved aside to make room for buildings and construction ramps; and second, that it
provided the tyrants with an excuse to remove reminders of the wealth and power of other
families, especially those with a long history of prominence. If this is true, the slow rise of
Akropolis votives in the sixth-century record could be explained by gradual removal during
the third quarter of the century. The official account would have been that it was necessary
for construction, but some statues could remain in place while others had to go, which would
explain why there is some material from the earlier sixth century, but not very much.151
A problem attached to this explanation is this: where did these statues, allegedly
cleared by Peisistratean (or, in fact, Kleisthenic) building activity, go? It is hardly likely that
the Athenians took the trouble of taking them down from the Akropolis for burial elsewhere,
all the more so because the sanctity of the dedications probably demanded appropriate, and
therefore local, burial. In the very extensive literature about the Akropolis, to my knowledge
no mention is made of any deposits which date exclusively to the earlier sixth century. In
short, the removal of the votive statues from the site at some time in the sixth century can be
dismissed as at best unlikely. Neither were they found in an identifiably sixth-century context
in any of the Akropolis excavations. Thus, it is warranted to conclude that no sizable group of
Akropolis sculpture from the first three quarters of the sixth century went missing before the
Persian wars. This seems to suggest that the sixth-century record from the Akropolis is for a
considerable part determined by the original quantities of dedications on that site, and that
the low numbers from the first half of the sixth century are more or less representative.152 Or
are there still other factors to consider?
150
For a clearance date in the 530s (with a new temple finished c. 525) see Korres 19971, 225; id.
2002, 184. A later date of the Older Parthenon in Stewart 20081, passim. Another type of building
activity on the Akropolis which could explain a lack of dedications is represented by the supposed
palace of the Peisistratids on the rock (Hurwit 1999, 118). It is generally considered unlikely that
they actually lived here, though (see e.g. Camp 2001, 35; and Holtzmann 2003, 46).
151
This would fit the idea that the Rampin horseman is one of a pair representing Hippias and
Hipparchos (Hurwit 1999, 118; contra Eaverly 1995, 73-8; Ridgway 1993, 200-1; Trianti 1998,
183-97; Holtzmann 2003, 64).
152
Obviously, unpublished material from Athens could throw a different light on this matter. For the
present study, however, there is no other choice than to base the argument on the available
evidence: conjecture about the numbers of these unpublished fragments, let alone their
quantitative development, is pointless.
51
Dedications in other materials than stone may shed some light on this subject.153 The
Akropolis has yielded many small plaques and figurines in terracotta (pls. 4a-b), which
provide a useful complement to the record of this study,. An approximate count of those
pieces (chart B.1) datable with enough accuracy to be of use here has the following results:
141 small terracotta dedications are late-archaic, 112 of which are plaques decorated with
various subjects in relief or paint, and dated to the first quarter of the fifth century.154 The
other 29 are figurines, the majority of which dates to the same period, while five examples
are from the last quarter of the sixth century. Unfortunately, Vlassopoulou’s catalogue of
terracotta votives from the Akropolis does not include enough of the classical period to serve
as a parallel for sculpture for the fifth century in its entirety.155 Nonetheless, the outcome for
the archaic period is interesting.
Small terracotta figurines are clearly abundant in the first quarter of the fifth century,
despite the five examples from the end of the archaic period. Of the terracotta plaques which
Chr. Vlassopoulou lists, no examples were dated accurately enough to be used here. In other
words: the entire group of datable votive plaques comes from the early fifth century. The
figurines are poorly preserved compared to the plaques, and their dates are often difficult to
establish. However, the analysis of both figurines and relief plaques is based on stylistic
criteria quite similar to those used in sculpture, while painted plaques are dated by means of
arguments akin to those in the analysis of vase painting, helped by the occasional overlap
with vase painters’ hands. Thus, there is no reason to accept the chronologies of sculpture
and pottery, but to dismiss these arguments in the case of terracotta.
Terracotta votives (chart B.1) show a similar development to other Akropolis material
in the record of this study. The only differences are, first, that the rising numbers of sculpted
monuments at the end of the sixth century occur later in small terracotta votives (tables 2b-c;
153
Insight in this record is severely hampered by the absence of wooden votives in excavations. Finds
in Samos offer a glimpse of more extensive use of this material. Kyrieleis 1984, 140-5; cf.
Vlassopoulou 2003, 17.
154
Based on Vlassopoulou 2003 (selection criteria and method described on 23-6). Table B.1 and
chart B.1; all pieces from c. 525-475 BC. E.g. pl. 4a.
155
Unlike Schulze 2004, who does not provide dates accurate enough to be of use here. Her
conclusion is that of the painted votive plaques from the Akropolis, 8 are proto-Attic, 15 are
white-ground, 106 are black-figure and 14 red-figure. Three are uncertain, eight have a
decoration in relief and six are from non-Attic origin but given the iconography, probably made
for the Attic market (Schulze 2004, 11).
52
B.1); and second, that examples of such terracottas from the earlier sixth century seem to be
altogether lacking.156 In part, this may be due to the difficulties of dating the older
terracottas, as a result of wear and damage. Yet early and middle archaic terracotta
dedications seem very scarce in general, even more so than stone votives. The easiest
explanations for this would be the loss of poorly preserved material during early excavations,
or simply a late arrival of terracotta as a material for votives on the Akropolis. It is possible
that varying preferences for types or materials of votives influenced the development of
sculpture in the sixth-century.
Smaller dedications in terracotta were less durable, less expensive and less
prestigious than large marble pieces. They would pile up relatively fast, being suitable for
minor occasions, frequent dedication, and costing little. Still, it has been convincingly argued
that small votives were not restricted to the poor, but were dedicated by wealthier
worshippers as well.157 While sculpture was beyond the means of a substantial group of
inhabitants of Athens, terracotta plaques and figurines could and would have been offered by
almost everyone. Their numbers must therefore have increased rapidly, and so space would
have become scarce on parts of the Akropolis which were reserved for such votives. A further
aspect is that small terracotta dedications damage easily. They were obviously not meant for
eternity, so the risk of offending patrons by getting rid of their votive statuettes or plaques
would have been slim – if they even noticed. In this respect, sculpture is very different from
these smaller and less costly votives.158 If nothing else, the sheer weight of a stone statue
would induce sanctuary staff with spatial concerns to leave it alone just a little while longer.
Taking this into account, the pattern of preservation of small terracottas emerging
from Vlassopoulou’s study makes quite good sense. From the earlier sixth century, hardly any
small terracotta votives seem to be preserved, either because they were not made, or because
they were cleared away (on a regular basis or because of construction). In both cases, the
material found in the fill would develop roughly as chart B.1 actually shows: a large group
dates from a brief period just before the destruction of the site by the Persians, but earlier
156
The numbers of votive bases and the equivalent sculpture turn upward c. a quarter century earlier
than terracottas. See tables 1 and B.1, chart 1b.
157
Schulze 2004, 50.
158
For the static, temporal qualities of sculpture v. the mobility of smaller votives; and patrons’
considerations in this, see K. Verdery, The Political Lives of Dead Bodies (1999) 5-12; Jacquemin
1999, 213.
53
material is scarce.159 Nor could there in fact have been much later material, because that
would have been cleared away, damaged, or lost over time.160 In other words, the window for
preservation of small terracotta votives was much narrower than that for sculpture, mostly
due to practical reasons, and the extensive building on the classical Akropolis is a stroke of
luck. Without it, very little of this material would have been preserved at all, or at least, little
would have been in a recognisable state.
Things are slightly different for pottery. Sheer numbers of sherds from the Akropolis
in the sixth and fifth centuries dwarf remains of both sculpture and terracottas (chart B.2).161
Moreover, it may be assumed that quite a lot of the plainer ware was lost because at the time
of excavation this type of material generally received less attention.162 That in spite of these
circumstances such large quantities remain is telling for the enormous production of Attic
pottery compared to sculpture, and its frequent use in ritual and as votives on the Akropolis.
Nevertheless, it is very difficult to define how pottery dedications worked. It is
uncertain whether the pots proper were the votives or their content was. It is not even clear
whether they always contained a gift or only sometimes, and if so, in which cases.163 V. Stissi
has pointed out that assemblages of pottery from Greek sanctuaries like the Athenian
Akropolis probably do not consist entirely of dedications.164 There are signs that often, these
collections encompass pottery for rituals, festive meals or everyday use by sanctuary
residents. The distinction between these vessels and those which were offered to the gods is
by no means always clear, especially because of circumstances of excavation and publication
of sanctuary pottery on many sites.
159
Early terracottas from the Akropolis are being prepared for publication by A. Moustaka. She kindly
informs me that c. 25 fragments from around the middle of the sixth century could well be from
free-standing votives. It is also possible that some decorated smaller buildings on the archaic
Akropolis, e.g. oikemata. Cf. below n. 177.
160
Many uncertainties surround this suggestion, and it raises questions: for example, where did the
bulk of removed terracotta votives go? It is important to take into consideration the link between
different physical characteristics of votives and preservation history: this theory is only offered as
a point of departure.
161
The numerical data for this part of the analysis were derived mostly from Stissi 2002.
162
Stissi 2002, 233, in particular ns. 1106 and 1108.
163
Ibid. 242-3 where he presents the argument that open pot forms were dedicated empty, while
closed shapes may have held further offerings. Since inscriptions on pots mostly refer to the pot
itself and not to the contents, the dedication was probably not about the latter. Cf. Van Straten
1981, 86; Simon 1983, 315-6.
164
Stissi 2002, 240.
54
With regard to their function, vases, even when dedicated as votives, fall into a different
category than sculpture or figurines. The latter have no practical, day-to-day purpose. They
were specifically made for dedication and in the period covered here, they had no other
function. To a modern mind, this distinction may carry more weight than it may have done
for an Athenian from the archaic or classical periods, but the functionality of a stone or
terracotta figurine undeniably differs from that of, for example, a drinking cup, even when
dedicated.165 Despite these differences and the mixed record of pottery, its development over
time is interesting. For the present case, the data can be divided no further than in fifty-year
periods, which hampers the comparison somewhat.166 Even so, it is clear that the great bulk
of datable Akropolis pottery is from the second half of the sixth century (chart B.2).
Quantities of sculpture and terracotta are practically lost in the huge wave of pottery at this
time. Thus, the largest group from a single quarter century must fall within the second half of
the sixth century. Considering that the newly invented red-figure in the final quarter of the
century should be added, while black-figured vases were still being made as well, the peak
probably falls in the final decades of the sixth century.
Despite this difference in absolute numbers, trends in sculpture on the sixth-century
Akropolis are not so different from black-figured pottery as one might expect. The second
half of the century is the richest sculpture period with 114 examples (table 2a), though the
difference with the first half of the fifth century (99 extant sculptures) is not large.167 In
pottery, numbers are obviously more dramatic, but the factor of multiplication and the timing
are similar.168 However, in the early fifth century black-figure gradually went out of fashion.
Numbers of red-figure pottery never compensate for this or reach the levels which the
pottery on the Akropolis had achieved in the late sixth century.169 Apparently, early redfigure ceramic votives were not as popular as their black-figure counterparts had been.
When the pottery from the Akropolis is set against the terracotta plaques and
figurines, it is striking that the latter seem to concentrate entirely in the period immediately
preceding and partly coinciding with the Persian wars. By contrast, a considerable portion of
165
De Polignac 1984, 14-5 argues that from the eighth century onwards, more and more votives
were specifically made for worship instead of for what he labels daily use. See below ch. IV.5-6.
166
After Stissi 2002, table XVI.14.
167
I.e. from the third quarter of the sixth century: 18 examples, from the final quarter: 96.
168
From the first to the second half of the sixth century, Akropolis sculpture increases roughly by a
factor 4, and black-figure pottery by 5.0. All pottery increases by approximately a factor 6.8.
169
Stissi 2002, 248.
55
the pottery seems to have been around for four or even five decades before interment. Of
course, many pots need not have been complete in 480 BC. Much of the material is highly
fragmented and may well have been broken long before the Persian destruction.170 The fact
that the bulk of preserved pottery dates not from the narrow period around the Persian wars,
but slightly earlier, opens up the possibility that this part of the pottery assemblage, contrary
to the terracottas or sculpture, was not only broken but also buried before the Persians
provided a reason.171
Over the past two centuries, the Akropolis was as good as fully excavated.172 This
means that most of the votives which were buried there, whether in stone or in terracotta,
must have been uncovered. As was suggested earlier, it is unlikely that large numbers of
marble dedications were actually taken away from the Akropolis before the debris deposits
were formed. This would mean that the low numbers of sculpted votives from the earlier
sixth century and the higher ones from the end of that century would be to a certain degree
representative of the actual quantity produced at the time. The large majority of terracotta
figurines and plaques from the end of the archaic period indicates either a development
similar to sculpture, or a late emergence of this type of votive on the Akropolis. Between the
small terracottas and marble sculpture, a slight but interesting difference exists, namely that
the former material appears to peak slightly later than the sculpture.173
Several larger terracotta statues on the Akropolis probably date to the middle of the
sixth century.174 If these fragments were freestanding votives in their own right, they may
have been cleared away and used as fills when a major building project was begun in the
second half of the sixth century.175 The relative paucity of monumental stone votives from
this period would in this case be due to the fact that large terracottas were a favoured
alternative.176 If, on the other hand, the terracottas were not freestanding but architectural,
170
Ibid. 239.
171
On the fifth-century Akropolis, pottery apparently falls by c. 91%, sculpture by c. 67% (table B.2).
172
See above n. 97.
173
This is of course presuming that the dates of pottery and sculpture can be relied on.
174
As suggested by A. Moustaka. See above n. 159; for further literature, below n. 177.
175
Hypothetically, some to the contemporary pottery might have shared that fate. Later construction
might have disturbed these deposits, for no exclusively sixth-century pockets of pottery have as
far as I know been excavated on the Akropolis.
176
To my knowledge, no votive bases which certainly carried terracottas were found on the
Akropolis. However, damage may make it difficult to distinguish between those for marble votives
and those for terracottas.
56
they may have adorned the small buildings known as oikoi or oikemata (map 4b). There is
evidence for several of these on the sixth-century Akropolis.177 Their terracotta pediments
and akroteria could have ended up in the deposits when they were torn down to make room
for the consecutive building projects of the late sixth and early fifth centuries.
Oikoi were probably shrines or treasuries for storing the more valuable gifts to the
gods. Of those on the sixth-century Akropolis or their contents, little is known, except that
they existed and that their function probably resembled other structures of a similar kind,
such as the treasuries at Delphi.178 Precious metal vessels, for example, could be kept here,
free from exposure to the elements and, if necessary, under lock and key.179 Until inscribed
lists of the treasures of the Akropolis sanctuaries were kept in the later fifth century, there
are no overviews of precious metal dedications, and even the inventory lists are
problematic.180 Such expensive votives as had existed on the archaic Akropolis were probably
taken when the sanctuaries were pillaged by the Persians. What was left was melted down
afterwards. As a result, there is no reliable information about their original numbers, and
hardly any traces of them now remain. But if the oikoi were donated or used by wealthy
Athenian families, their interest in marble sculpture would perhaps have lessened in favour of
both the oikoi and the precious dedications inside.
A collection of bronze statuettes excavated on the Akropolis and the bases of larger
bronze statues are all that is left of what in archaic times must have been an impressive
collection of metal dedications.181 Nonetheless, the widely held view that bronze replaced
177
E.g. Furtwängler and Kienast 1989, 66 n. 235; Harris 1995, 18; Lipka 1998, 80; Hurwit 1999,
115-6; Ferrari 2002, 14; Holtzmann 2003, 72-5; Stewart 20081, 401-3. Cf. also Osanna 2001,
328.
178
See Neer 2001 and 2004 for a full analysis of the function of treasuries. Perhaps Samos offers a
better analogy, since the sanctuary of Hera is, like the Akropolis, not Pan-Hellenic: cf. Kyrieleis
1993, 132-3.
179
Cf. Stewart 20081, 403. For further analysis of the proportion of metal vessels in sanctuary
assemblages, Stissi 2002, 258-68. Also Vickers, AJA 94 (1990), 613-25.
180
Many of the inventories from the fifth century seem to have been mostly used for public
dedications and cultic objects: Harris 1995, 28. Moreover, not everything was inscribed on the
lists: cf. Linders 1987, 118 n. 30; Aleshire 1992, 85-7 (for the Athenian Asklepieion).
181
As mentioned above, bronze statuettes were excluded from analysis because of their less specific
chronology. Bases for bronze have been discussed above, p. 26, 59. From 525-500 date 37 bases
for bronze items; from 500-475, 57 bases are for bronzes, nine of which were probably metal
vessels. Five examples carried tripods while one, EM 6444 (IG I3 831, cat. B 99) bore a bronze
basin. The attribution of a vessel of a particular material to a base is subjective. While for tripods,
57
marble as the main material for votives cannot be taken at face value. The quantitative
evidence is doubtful, and the relation between genres and the material of votives may cast an
entirely different light on this notion.182 This is best illustrated by the dedications from the
Akropolis in the late fifth century.
Most votives from the last half of the fifth century are reliefs, all of them in marble.183
There are some exceptions to this generic uniformity, such as the group of Prokne and Itys
and a head of a youth.184 Many of the classical votives, especially those from the Akropolis,
are rather modest and often worn and fragmentary. Their provenance is listed simply as
Akropolis or as the Asklepieion, the former producing 28 and the latter 13 of the total of 58
dedicated reliefs from the second half of the fifth century (table 2c). If the Asklepieion is
considered part of the Akropolis, 41 out of 58 is a large majority.185 In all, votive reliefs from
the Akropolis are dwindling in the second and third quarters of the fifth century (at five in
each period), but in the last quarter they abound.
Bases for votives present a slightly different picture. The data record contains 15
bases found on the Akropolis from the third quarter of the fifth century (table 2b), all but one
of which carried bronze dedications.186 In the last quarter of the fifth century, the Akropolis
bronze or other metals are obvious choices, materials of other vessels are less self-evident (as
demonstrated by the base possibly for a vase, EM 6421, cat. B 32).
182
Above p. 27-2, and n. 135; also below ch. IV.
183
See also the previous section. Out of 46 votives from the Akropolis area, five are not reliefs. In
total, there are 68 votives from the second half of the fifth century in the dataset. See
tables/charts 5-6 and below ch. IV.3 for further analysis of genres. Reliefs are often studied
separately (e.g. Mitropoulou’s Corpus or Vikela 2005). Consequently, they are often left out of
comparisons with votive sculpture from the late-archaic period. Strangely, grave reliefs from the
late fifth century are also rarely compared with contemporary votive reliefs.
184
Prokne, Akr. 1358, cat. V 160; head of youth, Akr. 699, cat. V 163. Also 450-425: Akr. 635, cat. V
155, head of Athena. Akropolis, 425-400: Athena statuette Akr. 3027, cat. V 327; statue of a girl,
Akr. 1310, cat. V 256.
185
Interestingly, the provenance details of most of the Akropolis votives from this period are not
further specified. Moreover, find spots of bases on the Akropolis seem more accurately recorded
than those of sculpture. This is in so far understandable that sculpture damages more easily and
fragments are therefore often smaller than those of bases. Quite a few fragments of sculpture,
many of them reliefs, were found built into walls from the Periklean era, i.e. in situ. Cf. next
section.
186
The base for a marble statue: cat. B 136, AM I 5128 (from the Agora). A base for statue of
unknown material: cat. B 137, EM 6295. Cat. B 145, EM 6515 is for a bronze statue, but was
found off the Akropolis.
58
produces only four bases.187 In the site’s record of the second quarter of the fifth century,
bases for both bronze and marble sculptures had appeared in greater numbers (table 2b).188
Yet from the next two quarter centuries, there are no bases for marble votives, and only 12
and six for bronzes.189 Although the bases from the Akropolis are somewhat more numerous
than those from other parts of Athens in the second half of the fifth century, the downward
trend is conspicuous.
In contrast with the absence of bases for dedications in marble from the final quarter
of the fifth century, the preserved votive sculpture outnumbers all bases by far at this time
(tables 2a-b).190 As soon as the extant marble votive sculpture from the Akropolis, especially
the large corpus of reliefs, is included in the discussion, it is clear that six bases for bronzes
cannot compete with 28 marble votives (table 2a) – despite the complete absence of bases for
marble dedications. The conclusion must therefore be that bronze can only be considered a
favoured material over marble for Athenian votives of the fifth century if the sculptural record
is judged selectively. The notion that on the Athenian Akropolis, bronze dedications took
over from marble, whether in the late archaic or the early classical period, is not supported
by the evidence.
T HE A KROPOLIS : A CLOSER LOOK
Because the excavation records of the Akropolis are incomplete, it is worthwhile to try and
find out if the distribution of Akropolis votives in this study can offer additional information.
The site has been roughly divided in a western, centre and eastern zone, the first running
approximately from the Propylaia to the Erechtheion and the Parthenon (map 5). The middle
includes the space in between these two sanctuaries and the area from the Parthenon to the
187
In total, six bases for bronze votives date from the final quarter of the fifth century, and none for
marble votives. The four from the Akropolis are EM 6296 (cat. B 143), EM 6297 (cat. B 146), Akr.
13264 (cat. B 176) and Akr. no. ? (IG I3 900, cat. B 177). The other two are AM I 3398 (cat. B104)
found near the Stoa of Attalos and EM 10330 (cat. B 105) and described as from Athens
(Amandry, BCH 100.1 (1976) 18-22, 63).
188
If sculpture is included: nine bases for marble, five statues, none overlapping; 18 bases for
bronze.
189
See above n. 67.
190
For examples see above n. 100.
59
southern containment wall of the Akropolis; the eastern part encompasses the area east of
the Erechtheion and Parthenon.191 A fourth zone runs along the north containment wall and
includes the north slope.
This last zone, being the largest, produced most of the Akropolis sculpture (table 2d,
chart 2d). East and west are similar in numbers while, not surprisingly, the middle area
yielded only few sculpted votives: although south of the Parthenon, and between the
Parthenon and the Dörpfeld foundation some sculpture was uncovered, the architectural
features in this area fill most of the space. Votive sculpture thus appears to have been buried
at the edges of the Akropolis rather than in the middle. This is even more clear for bases
(table 2d, chart 2e): 35 bases for votives from the first quarter of the fifth century were found
in the north area, and 20 from the quarter century before. Only the bases with no provenance
specification within the Akropolis constitute a larger group. Moreover, bases from the eastern
and western part again survive in similar quantities, while in the central area, they are much
fewer in number.192
Most bases from the last quarter of the sixth century were found on the east side of
the Akropolis (table 2d), although the quarter-century periodisation and some uncertainty as
to provenances require some caution. On the west side, most are dated to the early fifth
century. The majority of bases comes from the north zone, and this group peaks in the first
quarter of the fifth century with 35 examples. Sculpture from the same area concentrates in
the final quarter of the sixth century (table 2d), but differences in sculpture quantities per
location are smaller, because so much of the material does not have a specified provenance.
The first quarter of the fifth century produces as many statues from the eastern as the
western part of the Akropolis, but again, numbers are low and stay so for the rest of the
century.193 In the second quarter of the fifth century, bases continue in reasonable numbers
191
This division is based on the architectural setting and the organisation of space as it is
reconstructed for the fifth century. The Asklepieion on the south slope has been counted
separately.
192
From between c. 600 and 400 BC, the east and west part of the Akropolis produce 32 and 34
votive bases respectively, the north zone 64 and the centre 16. For sculpture, east and west
counted 24 and 23 votives, the centre nine and the north 36 examples. Interesting are the find
spots of monuments that are listed simply as ‘from the Akropolis’: among these, 180 are statues
while only 80 are supports.
193
Table 2d. Apparently, the find spots of bases were noted more accurately than thos of votive
sculpture. This could have to do with the fact that bases were more often found in walls, and so
more difficult to remove: the chances of the exact provenance being recorded might thus have
been greater.
60
only in the western part of the Akropolis, where the building pits of the Periklean building
programme, notably for the Propylaia, were the last to be open. Some among these bases
may well have been set up after the Persian wars, but have fallen victim to the fifth-century
remodelling of the Akropolis.
Post-Persian dedications among in the debris raise questions about the composition
of the deposited material. Of various theories regarding the period between the Persian wars
and the reconstruction of the Akropolis, one proposes that the destruction debris was
collected in piles, out of way of the main thoroughfares on the site, and lay untouched for up
to two decades before it was buried together with post-Persian material.194 The Erechtheion
and perhaps the temple of Athena Polias, or temporary versions of them, must have been
back in use quite soon after the destruction; it is unlikely that the ritual life of the city would
have ground to a halt for long.195 For a while, heaps of debris were put aside on the site. By
the time they were buried, some later material was included in the assemblage. This version
of events and the evidence of detailed Akropolis provenances can only be related by using
common sense. It is hardly possible that the Persians bothered to move any material after
they wreaked destruction. The ones to do so would be the Athenians, who would have tried
to get the debris out of the way with minimal effort.
If these small differences between the various provenance areas in the Akropolis
(table 2d) are accepted as representative, they seem to indicate that within the temporary
debris piles, material from one period may well have occurred more frequently than from
others. For example, the north zone has more bases and sculpture from the first quarter of
the sixth century than from other periods, whereas the eastern area reaches its summit a
quarter century earlier. As can be expected, in the second quarter of the fifth century, the
west of the Akropolis is most prolific, though low numbers (nine bases and no sculpture) put
this statement into perspective.196
194
Hurwit 1989, 63; Boersma 1970, 46. The latter emphasises the victory in the battle of Eurymedon,
the spoils of which were necessary to finance the new Akropolis south wall, if not the north wall
as well. Also Stewart 20081, 393. Contra Korres 2002, 184, who argues that the sight of the
broken votive sculpture would have been too distressing for the Athenians, especially in view of
the sacred setting.
195
Bundgaard 1976, 82, 105; Boersma 1970, 50.
196
Cat. B 47, EM 6375; cat. B 117, EM 6273; cat. B 119, Akr. no. ?; cat. B 120, Akr. 13248; cat. B 121,
Akr. 13206; cat. B 140, Akr. 13250; cat. B 172, Akr. no. ?; cat. B 193, EM 6365 (a), 6366 (b); cat. B
244, Akr. no. ?
61
This is not to suggest that any deliberate selection took place before the debris was buried.
Concentrations of material in one period per area, and the evidence that not all areas peak at
the same time, shows that dedications may have been roughly set up in spatial clusters per
period, because some areas filled up and new space was then allotted to dedicants. As a
result, debris from such clusters would often (not always, for sometimes fragments of one
statue were found very far apart) have ended up on the same pile, simply because it was the
nearest one. The placement of statues must somehow have been regulated; whoever was
responsible appointed areas of the Akropolis for dedication until they were full. In view of the
popularity of both small terracottas and monumental sculpted dedications in the late sixth
century, these areas must quickly have become crowded. Thus, new dedications would be set
up in other parts of the Akropolis, perhaps causing the material to be kept together to some
degree, and spread in time and place according to the pattern which the Akropolis
assemblage in this study shows.
Another aspect of this view is the relation to building activity. Apart from a quick
filling up of the space for private votives on the Akropolis in the late sixth century,
construction may also have made it necessary to turn to new dedication zones. A move of
votive bases to the north and west or southwest of the Akropolis in the first quarter of the
fifth century may have been caused by building activity, located for example on the preParthenon at the end of the sixth century, which required clear access to the various sites of
construction in the fifth century.197 It is impossible to choose one conclusively or to
reconstruct exactly how or when the piles of debris were formed and processed. Yet it seems
clear that the debris was not buried right after the Persian wars, nor did it lie around where
the Persians had left it until the construction of the temples began in the mid-fifth century.
Thus, deposition may date to the 460s, when containment walls were begun and the site was
cleared for further building.198
197
On a related note, Osanna 2001 and Ferrari 2002 suggest that the remains of the temple on the
Dörpfeld foundation stayed in use until the late fifth century: a fire in 406 BC would have
destroyed this temple.
198
For recent discussions of the containment walls of the Akropolis and their dates, see Korres 2002;
Steskal 2004, passim and Stwart 20081.
62
T HE K ERAMEIKOS
The largest single site for grave monuments from Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries, the
Kerameikos, provides the most sepulchral monuments (map 6b).199 As was discussed earlier,
numbers of funerary sculpture and bases are much lower than those of votives, and their
provenance is less consistent (table 2c). In the Kerameikos, trends in gravestones change
direction every quarter century of the sixth century. The second quarter is relatively prolific
with 15 pieces.200 Though modest compared to votives, for grave monuments this number is
considerable (charts 2-2a). After this small peak, they go from five examples in the third
quarter of the sixth century to eight in the last quarter of the sixth century, and again to five
in the first quarter of the fifth century.201 A gap follows in the second quarter of the fifth
century, but numbers return to five in the next period.202 The final quarter of the century is
richest both for the Kerameikos and for grave sculpture in general. With 21 examples, the
Kerameikos comes second only to the category Athens Other in this period.203
Bases for bronze grave monuments are extremely rare in Athens in both the sixth
and the fifth century. Only two examples appear in the record: a base in the Epigraphical
Museum in Athens, EM 10255, and what is believed to be an Ionian capital base, once part of
a grave monument from the Kerameikos.204 The former comes from the aqueduct near the
Tower of the Winds, next to the Roman Agora, which casts some doubt on its use as a
funerary monument.205 Otherwise, bases for bronze grave statues seem to be lacking, which
199
Its preservation is relatively good, although early excavation has obscured some of the evidence.
200
From 600-575: cat. G 5, NMA 71; cat. G 6, NMA 3372, 3965; cat. G 19, KM P 1698; cat. G 20, KM
I 461; cat. G 29, KM P 315; cat. G 96, KM P 1133; cat. G 104, KM no. ?; cat. G 135, KM no. ? From
550-525: cat. G 22, KM P 1051; cat. G 85, KM P 1052; cat. G 90, NMA 5826; cat. G 97, NMA 72;
cat. G 98, NMA 7901.
201
From 525-500: cat. G 2, KM P 744-6; cat. G 23, KM P 1053; cat. G 35, NMA 4801; cat. G 82, NMA
87; cat. G 88, NMA 782; cat. G 92, KM P 747; cat. G 105, KM P 699; cat. G 133, KM P 1613. From
500-475: cat. G 81, KM P 1455; cat. G 87, KM P 267; cat. G 131, KM P 1615, 1616; cat. G 132,
KM P 1617; cat. G 134, KM P 1618
202
From 450-425: cat. G 8, NMA 3709; cat. G 46, KM P 1169; cat. G 124, KM Mag. 14; cat. G 130,
KM P 1374; cat. G 148, NMA 2588.
203
Kerameikos: 21 of a total of 77 gravestones. Athens Other (49 in 425-400) will be discussed in
the next section. Cf. also above p. 39.
204
Ionian capital: cat. B 288, KM no. ? For an interpretation, see Niemeyer 2002, 31-2 fig. 31-2. EM
10225 see next note or above n. 84.
205
Cat. B 173, EM 10255, IG I3 1202; Peek, AM 67 (1942) [1951], 80 n. 135; Jeffery, BSA 57 (1962),
11 n. 5; Kissas 2000, 249 no. 3.
63
is a strong indication that bronze was in principle not used for grave monuments in archaic
Athens. A total of 42 bases for marble gravestones dates to the sixth century, many of them
from the Kerameikos.206 There are some discrepancies between grave bases and grave
sculpture. First, the third quarter of the sixth century shows a decline of gravestones, while
the number of bases rises. Then, bases and gravestones follow a similar pattern until bases
abruptly disappear in the first quarter of the fifth century.207 There are no sepulchral bases
from the fifth-century Kerameikos, at least not of private monuments.208 In fact, only two
funerary bases from the fifth century are preserved: the monument of a woman, Menestho,
and one erected to the memory of one [----]antios.209 On the other hand, funerary sculpture
makes a strong comeback after its mid-century lapse and interestingly, the Kerameikos is no
longer its predominant find spot.
The total number of gravestones is about half of that of votives, but the number of
sepulchral bases in the record only reaches slightly less than one-sixth of the total number of
votive bases (table 1a). Even if pedestals for bronze statues are excluded, the number of
votive bases for marble dedications is double or triple that of marble funerary bases (table
1b). This can be explained in several ways. Sepulchral bases may have been less accurately
recorded than votive ones in epigraphic and archaeological research.210 Alternatively, fewer
sepulchral bases may have been preserved or more may be as yet undiscovered. This would
of course depend on their location. Finally, fewer sepulchral bases than the equivalent
sculptures might actually have been produced in Athens in the archaic period, which would
need further explanation. These three suggestions, one stemming from methods of
206
Divided as follows: 25 from the Kerameikos and four from the Agora, all from the sixth century;
13 from elsewhere in Athens, including one example from the Akropolis (cat. B 183, EM 13486,
the monument of Kleito; it is hard to understand what this base was doing on the North Slope of
the Akropolis).
207
All but one: cat. B 103, EM 10635. See above n. 151.
208
Pythagoras, proxenos of Selymbria, probably received a state burial c. 460 BC. His monument
(with stepped base), is not included here because of its public nature. See Köhler 1885, 366;
Brückner 1909, 6-10 figs. 3, 5-7; Möbius 1968, 9 n. 4; Hoepfner 1973, 145-63, pls. 77-8;
Knigge 1988, 97-9 no. 10; Wijma 2010, 256-7.
209
EM 10254, cat. B 128, IG I3 1302 (Menesthos). The type of statue once on this base is not entirely
clear. There is a rectangular cutting on top of the base which might indicate a number of
gravestone types. EM 10635, cat. B 103 (for [----]antios) was found in Aiolou St. (Jeffery, BSA 57
(1962), 132 n. 30; IG I3 1236). It is a stepped base with part of the original limestone block (a
stele) still preserved in the socket.
210
Kreeb 1999, 10 n. 12.
64
recording, one from preservation and one from production, could separately or in
combination account for the discrepancies between gravestones and their bases, and to a
lesser extent, between trends in votive and sepulchral bases.211 In this section, all three
aspects will be discussed.
Judging by the bibliography on the subject, scholarly neglect cannot to be blamed for
low numbers of bases – especially not for funerary inscriptions.212 The Kerameikos
excavations have been published extensively,213 as are the funerary practices of archaic and
classical Greece and of the Athenian Kerameikos in particular.214 The first possibility above, a
less thorough record for gravestones than for votives, would thus seem unlikely. After all, an
urban cemetery with a relatively complete diachronic burial record from prehistory until
Roman times has obvious appeal for scholars. However, the early start of the excavations
(similar to votives) restricts the possibilities for the more context-oriented approach favoured
nowadays.215 Archaic Attic gravestones have so far rarely been assembled for quantitative
analysis, which requires all available material to be included rather than only the best
211
The collection of bases in this study is suitable for these questions, because they are not
concerned with a comparison of votives and gravestones, but of funerary bases with their
equivalent sculptures. Their relative spread over time is studied here rather than the total
numbers. Since the same selection criteria were applied to both votive and funerary monuments,
the results of both trends can be compared, even if this will say little or nothing about the
absolute numbers.
212
For the present case, most importantly Brückner 1893; Clairmont CAT; Conze AG; IG II2; IG I3;
Jeffery 1962 and LSAG; Knigge Ker. IX and 1988; Kübler Ker. VI and VII.1; Kunze-Götte Ker. VII.2;
Morris 1992, ch. VI 156-73; Peek Ker. III and GG; Riemann Ker. II; Salta 1991 (specifically for
Athens and Attika); Scheibler Ker. XI; Schlörb-Vierneisel Ker. XV; Stupperich 1977. See JacobFelsch 1969, Kissas 2000 and Kosmopoulou 2002, for the bases and supports rather than
inscriptions. M. Kreeb (1999) gives an overview of research on Kerameikos inscriptions (p. 9-10
ns. 3-12); see B. Petrakos (1998) for an epigraphic bibliography of the site.
213
See previous note. Also Curtius 1862-5; Karo 1943, Kerameikos 2001 passim, Niemeyer 2002
and numerous articles in e.g. the Athenische Mitteilungen and the Archäologischer Anzeiger (see
bibliography there).
214
Garland 1989 and 1995; Houby-Nielsen 1995; Humphreys 1983; Kurtz and Boardman 1971;
Morris 1989 and especially 1992, ch. IV-V, 103-27; D’Onofrio 1982; Rohde 1894; Stissi 2002,
271-81 (also on pottery-related funerary practices in other parts of Greece); Sourvinou-Inwood
1995. The list is long; it will be complemented in the following pages.
215
E.g. Morris 1987, 1992; Kreeb 1999, 12. Systematic excavations in the Kerameikos by the
Archaeological Society of Greece, in particular by S. Kumanudis, started in 1863. In 1913, the
official permit was transferred to the German Archaeological Institute, which has excavated on the
site continuously except for two interruptions during the World Wars. Re-excavations of some
areas now add to our grasp of the burial practices associated with the graves, sacrificial pits or
Opferrinnen and gravestones. See Stroszeck and Posamentir 2002.
65
preserved pieces.216 In view of the many examples of quantitative research on graves, it is
fitting to apply numerical analysis to gravestones as well, in spite of smaller quantities. A first
question to this end is why sepulchral bases and gravestones seem to develop differently
(tables 1b, 2b-c).
One explanation for the paucity of grave bases is poor preservation, resulting in a
smaller number of grave than votive bases. The great bulk of Athenian votive sculpture and
related material is from the Akropolis, and the high survival ratio of sixth and early fifthcentury material is partly due to the Persian debris. The question is whether a sepulchral
equivalent of that debris exists. In a well-known passage of his Histories, Thucydides
describes how immediately after the Persian wars the Athenians hurriedly built a defensive
wall around Athens, using every piece of stone that they could lay their hands on (map 1).217
According to Thucydides’ account, the signs of their haste were still clearly visible in his
lifetime. In classical Athens, cemeteries lay on the outskirts of the city;218 they were therefore
in close vicinity to the wall, and available materials, especially base blocks from grave
monuments, were used for its construction.219 Thus, the Themistoklean wall, in particular the
stretch between what is now Piraeos Street and the church of the Holy Trinity was an ideal
depot for sculpture, a sepulchral counterpart to the votive debris from the Akropolis.
In 1916, the first extraction of a grave statue from the Themistoklean wall was
recorded: the Dipylon head, named after the north tower of the gate it had been built into (pl.
4c).220 Since then, many gravestones and bases have come to light in the remains of the city
circuit.221 Elsewhere in the Kerameikos they were found too, a few even in situ over graves.222
216
As in Riemann; Ker. II, p. V. Morris 1992, 128-73 on burial practices using quantitative material,
does not give numbers of gravestones. Fourth-century grave monuments on www.db.dyabola.de.
Cf. Clairmont CAT; Scholl 1996; Bergemann 1997. For pottery: Stissi 2002 (above n. 214); HoubyNielsen 1995; Morris 1992, 103-27.
217
Thuc. 1.93.1-2. The trajectory of the wall and the existence of earlier versions will be discussed
below: n. 279. See there for various trajectories suggested in scholarship.
218
For the position of burial grounds in Greek cities and Athens in particular, Winter 1982.
219
Thuc. 1.90.3. Cf. e.g. Knigge 1988, 62.
220
Cat. G 6; NMA 3372, 3965. Buschor, AM 52 (1927) 205; Niemeyer 2002, 22; ibid. 55 for a
bibliography of Themistoklean Wall finds.
221
Culminating in 2002 in the find of four new pieces of archaic grave sculpture and two capitals
(Niemeyer 2002): cat. G 17, KM P 1699; cat. G 18, KM no. ?; cat. G 19, KM P 1698; the Ionian
capital KM no. ?, cat. B 288. The second capital showed no signs of the type of statue and its
inscription was not usable for this study. It was therefore left out.
222
In total the database contains 41 statues and 26 bases from before the Persian war with
provenance Kerameikos (table 2b); of these, 22 gravestones and 11 bases were found in the
66
Since smaller, loose pieces were big enough to be used as building material, one wonders
why some of the Kerameikos monuments were left out of the wall. Were there limits,
religious, social or other, to what could be taken for Athens’ defence? It is perhaps more
likely that such oversights ensued from the general chaos after the destruction of the city in
480 BC. Some monuments may have been lost in the rubble and by the time they were found,
the construction of the wall had already reached the superstructure of clay bricks, or was
even complete. Some sculptures were irregularly shaped and less useful for the
foundation.223 Some pieces stayed out of the original wall, but were later used for repairs of
the city circuit or of other infrastructure in the area.224
The latter scenario has been suggested for six pieces of archaic sculpture discovered
in 2002.225 They were left near the fifth-century ground level for practical reasons until the
time when they were used for repairs. All of them have wheel-marks, resulting from their
position in the road to the Sacred gate. Later, the road was abandoned and channels were
built over it to keep the Eridanos river from flooding the area. However, the date exact of the
road is disputed. A date immediately after 480/79 is a possibility, but so is one later in the
fifth century when the Eridanos had proved to be a problem.226
The Themistoklean wall provides a relatively solid date ante quem for the sculpture
found in it. Contrary to the Akropolis deposits, however, the wall never held all the prePersian sculpture from the Kerameikos. Archaic spolia were used in later buildings on the
Themistoklean Wall. Possibly in situ were the limestone stele KM no. ?, cat. G 135 with the
corresponding base cat. B 287 (also KM no. ?), dated to 600-575; the Eupheros stele KM 1169 (pl.
4d) may belong to the grave containing a wooden coffin which was found below it (Frel SAA 12
no. 16. For the context ibid. 15; Schlörb-Vierneisel, AM 79 (1964) 90-104. Both the grave and the
relief date from after the middle of the fifth century.
223
E.g. NMA 2687, cat. G 76, was roughly chiselled to fit into the wall better. Unlike other pieces,
after this it could be – and was – used for the wall. Cf. Knigge 1988, 53-4 fig. 52.
224
Perhaps the head of a youth in Severe Style, cat. G 31, KM P 1455? It was found in Hellenistic
rubble south of the Sacred gate. Also cat. G 105, KM P 699: Gruben, AA 1969, 32 fig. 6;
Willemsen, AM 85 (1970) 29 pl. 11.2. The wall was probably renovated after several earthquakes
in the 420s, and certainly rebuilt after the demolition at the end of the Peloponnesian war. The
latter phase is known as Kononian and dates from 394 BC. on. See Thuc. 3.87.4; 4.52.1; 5.45.4.
For a brief outline of the historical events see Knigge 1988, 49-54.
225
Niemeyer 2002 50. Cf. above n. 221.
226
For the date of these particular structures of the Kerameikos, Niemeyer 2002, 47 (quoting G.
Kuhn for the research on the date of the foundations; cf. 23) and contra Knigge 1988, 56-7. Cf.
above n. 224.
67
site,227 and some of the loose material lay around for quite some time before being re-used.
Although few gravestones were found in situ,228 the scattered finds from the Kerameikos
show the accuracy of Thucydides’ account: no time was wasted on a complete clear-out of
the cemetery, as probably happened on the Akropolis. This means that though the records of
the two sites result from the same event, they are composed differently. In the Kerameikos,
the debris was probably never fully cleared at all, but many gravestones were built into the
wall very soon after the Persian wars. On the Akropolis on the other hand, it took quite some
time for the piles of debris to actually be buried, but then it was done thoroughly. In short,
the post-Persian deposition of votives from the Akropolis was slow, but meticulous. That of
the gravestones from the Kerameikos was fast and hurried, using only part of the material in
the initial wall.229 So, the grave monuments had a smaller chance of becoming building
material and therefore of survival than those on the Akropolis. In this light it is
understandable that from archaic times, fewer gravestones and their bases than votive
monuments are preserved.
These circumstances, however, do not account for the difference between funerary
bases and grave sculpture. In principle, bases are ideally suited for construction. Their
numbers rise from the second quarter to the end of the sixth century, although the highest
number of 11 examples in the last quarter of the sixth century is not high. At the start of the
fifth century, funerary bases disappear from the Kerameikos, which may suggest the
influence of the wall. But why would pieces from the first three quarters of the sixth century
be more likely to end up in it than later ones, which were most recent at the time the wall was
built? It is quite unthinkable that the Athenians sorted the emergency building material
beyond the practical: they were in a rush and simply took what was at hand. Theoretically, it
is possible that a group of bases from the late-archaic period was concentrated in an as yet
unexcavated cemetery, whose gravestones were built into a part of the wall elsewhere. If a
new area had just come into use as a burial ground at the end of the sixth century, the
227
The present data record 14 out of 24 Kerameikos bases as associated to the wall and environs. Of
sculpture, 23 of 39 items from the pre-Persian Kerameikos (plus one outside of the Kerameikos)
are associated to the wall; only two actually come from the wall itself: the lion KM P 1053 and the
relief of a man KM P 1132 (cat. G 23 and 75 respectively). For contexts of sculptures found in the
Dipylon area see Hoepfner, Ker. X, 106-8.
228
The exception of the stele in the Kerameikos museum, dating to 600-575, is hard to explain.
Compare above n. 222.
229
There is a possibility that some of the grave monuments were repaired and remained in use.
However, there is no physical evidence for this in the present data record.
68
nearest stretch of the Themistoklean Wall would be richest in funerary sculpture and bases
from that zone.
However, this view surmises the existence of such a cemetery and of an unexcavated
stretch of Themistoklean wall outside the Kerameikos, which was at least originally full of
grave sculpture and bases from that period, and yet is completely unknown to ancient
sources as well as present-day archaeology. The ample research in the area makes this
unlikely. Moreover, if a stretch of the wall containing most of the late-archaic gravestones
really existed, one would expect at least some exceptions in the wall at the Kerameikos, one
or two gravestones or bases from the early fifth century. But no funerary bases from after the
turn of the century were found there. In fact, no excavated parts of the wall anywhere in
Athens have produced funerary bases from the first quarter of the fifth century.230 This
suggests, though admittedly ex silentio, that in the early fifth century the use of bases
became less ubiquitous. By consequence, no sculpture from this period should be preserved,
at least none which would need a base or pedestal.
Like sepulchral bases, grave sculpture from the early fifth century is conspicuously
absent from the excavated parts of the Themistoklean wall. Beyond the wall, however, the
picture is different. Five examples of grave sculpture from the early fifth century show that
grave monuments were made at this time (table 2a).231 All of these are statues which needed
some kind of support; yet no bases for them from the fifth-century Kerameikos are listed n
the record (table 2b).232 It is not unusual that numbers of bases and statues do not add up,
but here, they are lacking entirely. It is impossible to set up these statues without bases, so it
must be concluded that the early fifth-century sepulchral bases are missing from the
archaeological record. This means that for the late-archaic funerary monuments of the
Kerameikos, the extant material does not represent the levels of sculpture production. One
explanation might be that the bases, convenient as they are for construction, were used as
building material more than sculpture fragments. The fact that the sculpture fragments from
230
See below, p. 78-80.
231
Above n. 80. The lion cat. G 106, AM S 1942 is from the Agora. The following sculptures were
found in the Kerameikos: cat. G 81, KM P 1455, head of a youth; cat. 87, shoulder of a kouros;
cat. G 131, cat. G 132 and cat. G 134 (KM P 1615-6, 1617 and 1618 respectively), frs. of basins.
Cf. Stewart 20081.
232
Outside of the record of this study, hardly any sepulchral bases from the Kerameikos in the first
quarter of the fifth century seem to survive either. IG I3 lists one example from Athens, IG I3 1236
(cat B 103) but it was found in the Od. Aiolou, east of the Kerameikos proper.
69
this period are quite small and that three out of five are fragments of basins, thin slab-like
pieces, suggests that they were overlooked or deemed useless, while bigger objects and
bases were put to use in the new circuit wall, now underneath the modern city.233
Practically no sepulchral bases from the fifth century are preserved (table 2b).234
Grave sculpture on the other hand abounds in the second half of the fifth century, rising from
none to six to twenty, in the second, third and final quarters of the fifth century respectively.
Only the category Athens Other produces more at the end of the fifth century. The absence of
bases of grave monuments in the later fifth century is – contrary to the situation in the first
quarter – not surprising. More than three quarters of gravestones from the Kerameikos in the
second half of the fifth century are reliefs or stelai. The evidence shows that at the time,
these stelai were often placed on the walls of family grave precincts or periboloi, serving as
memorials for several consecutive generations.235 Many are quite modest in size and the
structure of the peribolos would have sufficed to support them. In this respect, the evidence
is more straightforward than of the votives of the late fifth century: it is clear in which way
many of the gravestones could have been placed, even though few were found in situ.
T HE A GORA AND BEYOND
The site of the Agora (maps 7a-b and 8a) is represented in the record with 57 votive and
grave sculptures from the archaic to the classical period (table 2a). Of these, 33 are votives
and 24 gravestones: an even division compared to the Akropolis and Kerameikos. Quite a few
sanctuaries in the Agora would seem likely candidates for sculpted votives, because their
deities regularly received such gifts in other places. For graves and therefore gravestones, the
Agora was off-limits in classical times, but there was a burial ground on the western slope of
the Areopagos (close to, though not actually in the Agora: map 8b) which was used well into
233
Fragments of poorly preserved (and so undatable) bases for late-archaic grave sculpture might be
present in the excavation’s storerooms. Despite the thoroughness of the archaeologists working
at the Kerameikos, not all bases nor all sculpture fragments (from the Kerameikos nor from other
sites in Athens) are published yet. Future additions to the record of Athenian grave monuments
will undoubtedly shed new light on this material, but for the present, any analysis can only be
based on what is available.
234
Above n. 209; neither is from the Kerameikos.
235
See pl. 52c; also e.g. Knigge 1988, 137; Garland 1982; Shapiro 1991, 656; Schmaltz 2001 (for the
late fifth and the fourth century BC). Cf. also Patterson 2006.
70
Archaic times.236 Its presence could mean two things. First, the ban on burials of deceased
adults within the city-walls may not have been in force yet, and so, gravestones found in the
Agora might actually have come from graves there. Alternatively, the city walls of the archaic
period may have enclosed a smaller area than the later Themistoklean fortifications, and the
cemetery was therefore not in the restricted area.237 No sculpted monuments were apparently
found within the boundaries of this burial ground.238
Bases from the Agora proper are few, but like sculpture, evenly divided between
votive and sepulchral material (table 2b).239 The numbers, six and four respectively, are so
low that there is little point in analysing them. The only thing that can be said is that no
bases for gravestones appear to have been found in the Agora after the sixth century. The
sepulchral bases which are preserved date to the third quarter and in one case to the last
quarter of the sixth century BC.240 Votive bases are as scarce, with only two examples from
the final quarter of the sixth century and two from the first quarter of the fifth.241 Nor do they
increase in the fifth century.242 One of the rare late examples, AM I 5128, may have been
dedicated on the Akropolis originally and is sometimes considered the base of the Sosandra,
dedicated by Kimon’s brother-in-law Kallias.243 An explanation for its find spot, far from the
Propylaia where ancient sources locate it originally, is lacking.244
236
Map 9a shows the distribution of graves and main buildings from the Late Bronze Age to the Early
Iron Age. Cf. also Young 19511; Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 69-70; Winter 1982 (response to
Young); Salta 1994, 8-10.
237
Some funerary sculpture and bases from the Agora may have been used in the Themistoklean
wall; if so, this would suggest that that wall ran not too far from the cemetery. The trajectory of
the city walls of Athens, archaic or Themistoklean, however, is problematic: cf. below p. 78.
238
The record of this study contains no gravestones from this area, nor bases of either function.
239
Agora votive bases, two from 525-500, two from 500-475: see above n. 185. None from 475450; one dated 450-425: cat. B 136, AM I 5128. From 425-400: cat. B 104, AM I 3398. Funerary
bases from the Agora, three from 550-525, above n. 180; and cat. B 138, AM I 2352, 525-500.
240
From 550-525: cat. B 157, AM I 6451; cat. B 187, AM I 6451; and the base of Antilochos, cat. B
264, EM 10647-9.
241
Votive bases from 525-500: cat. B 58, AM I 5821; cat. B 147, EM 6698 (a), Akr. 13995 (b); from
500-475: cat. B 108, AM I 1597; cat. B 124, AM I 5517.
242
Cat. B 104, AM I 3398 (IG I3 876; 425-400) and cat. B 136, AM I 5128 (IG I3 962: 450-425).
Considering the amount of unpublished material on the website of the Agora excavations, there
are undoubtedly more examples beyond the reach of this research. Cf.
http://www.agathe.gr/resources.html.
243
Richter 1950, 205; base found in Agora Section Y 38, house 614/18. The original described in
Luc. Im. 4. There is some confusion whether this statue was itself nicknamed Sosandra, or was a
gift to Aphrodite Sosandra. The reason for the epithet is uncertain too. A dedication described by
71
More informative than the rare votive bases from the Agora are the sculptures. In the record
from the third quarter of the sixth century, gravestones in the Agora amount to nine
examples and in the next period to seven (table 2a, chart 2a).245 Votive statues, like the
corresponding bases, are mostly from the final quarter of the sixth century and the first
quarter of the fifth, totalling thirteen and seven respectively.246 Later in the fifth century, they
go up steadily by two per quarter century (chart 2).247 It is noteworthy that in the Agora and
on the Akropolis alike, the period after the Persian wars does not completely lack sculpture.
The quantity of gravestones grows slightly as well, to five examples in the last quarter.248
In the early sixth century, material from the Kerameikos produces most gravestones,
followed by the Agora (table 2a). However, in the second quarter several gravestones come
from elsewhere in Athens, and in the third all three provenance categories, Agora,
Kerameikos, and Athens Other are represented. From the start of the second quarter of the
fifth century, all three show a similar pattern (chart 2a): a gradual increase to the final quarter
of the century. In votives (chart 2), the Agora achieves modest peaks in the final quarter of
the sixth and the first quarter of the fifth century. This resembles the Akropolis material, but
numbers of Agora votives are much lower. In short, the Agora votives and gravestones peak
when sites with the most prolific quantities of sculpture do so, but on a much smaller scale.
Pausanias (I.23.2) as having the same dedicator and sculptor, and placed at the entrance of the
Akropolis, cannot belong to this base, since the statue was a bronze lion, not a female figure in
marble. Cf. below p. 163.
244
DAA 152-3 no. 136 and p. 507. Raubitschek suggests the sanctuary of Aphrodite on the west
slope of the Akropolis. The identification cannot be proven, though the combination of inscribed
names is tempting and the votive it carried was apparently in marble, which would fit. Cf. cat. B
136 and below n. 701.
245
For the gravestones from the sixth-century Agora see below n. 286.
246
Agora votives dated 575-550: cat. V 54, AM S 1358. From 550-525: none; 525-500: 13
examples, and dated to 500-475: cat. V 57, AM S 1984, fr. of abduction group; cat. V 59, AM S
1477, fr. of miniature lion and bull group; cat. V 178, NMA 43, Herakles and boar relief; cat. V
321, AM S 211, Herm; cat. V 322, Akr. ?, miniature herm; cat. V 323, AM S 730, small bearded
head (Herm?); cat. V 328, AM S 138, fr. of female figure.
247
Of 475-450: cat. V 245, NMA 4802; cat. V 250, AM S 218. Of 450-425: cat. V 5, AM S 1232; cat.
V 246, AM S 1289; cat. V 278; AM S 2094; cat. V 319, AM S 2452. Dated 425-400: cat. V 220, AM
S 654; cat. V 237, AM S 2067; cat. V 255, AM S 1882; cat. V 264, AM S 2049; cat. V 270, AM S
1013; cat. V 272, AM S 1045.
248
Cat. G 70, AM S 499; cat. G 138, AM I 6349; cat. G 162, AM I 2959; cat. G 164, AM I 1898; cat. G
166, AM I 139; there is one from the Agora in 450-425, namely the stele of Herakleides, cat. G
163, NMA 2066.
72
The relation between the Agora votives and those of the northern part of the Akropolis,
especially the slope, is interesting (charts 2, 2d): numbers of preserved votives from the final
quarter of the sixth century until the middle of the fifth (in other words, the range of the
Persian debris) are practically the same as those on the Agora.249 A few fragments of
Akropolis dedications were even found in the Agora.250 Considering the lay of the two sites,
this similar pattern is hardly surprising.
Even though some sculptures and bases in the Agora originally came from the
Akropolis, the numbers are too low to argue for a deliberate removal of sculpture or bases
from one site to the other. In view of the severe damage to many of the Agora pieces (e.g.
pls. 5a-c), especially those which were found close to the Akropolis, they may well have fallen
or perhaps have been thrown off the hill, but not systematically brought down.251 Neither is
the reverse probable: damaged votive material from the city was hardly collected on top of
the Akropolis. Since it is common sense to move shattered sculpture as little as possible, at
least some of the Agora votives must have come from the site itself. The question arises
which shrines and sanctuaries (and cemeteries) existed in the Agora in the sixth and fifth
centuries, and second, at which of these, and thus for which deities, were sculpted votives
appropriate offerings?
The Agora area was laid out north of the Akropolis in the first half of the sixth
century after it was probably moved from the east side of the hill (maps 9a-b).252 The exact
249
North slope Akropolis: 14 and 8 from 525-500 and 500-475 respectively. Agora: 13 and 7.
Tables 2a and 2d.
250
As e.g. the base of Sosandra (above, n. 244); kore Akr. 683 with a fr. of her buttock AM S 1131
from the Agora; cat. V 28. The connection was first noted by Harrison 1955, 169-71 pl. 65; cf.
Harrison 1965, 21-2 no. 75, pl. 7. The base EM 6348 (b), cat. B 262, IG I3 644 (b) is a certain
match, part of a group with two korai on column bases. Cf. Keesling 2003, 9-10 fig. 4, 210, 214.
For other bases with scattered frs. from the two sites, see for example cat. B 70, B 136 and B 147.
The Sosandra base was counted as found on the Agora, while the fragment of Akr. 683 was not
counted separately.
251
As for example the piece in the previous note, AM S 1131 or other kore fragments from the
Agora. Also: AM S 1957, cat. V 277 or AM S 2106, cat. V 104.
252
Thompson 1966, 45; Boersma 1970, 15; Travlos 1971, 6; Camp 2001, 29-36, fig. 30; Lippolis
2006, 52-6; and in general Marconi 2001. Boersma assumed that already before the sixth
century, the Agora was located west or north-west of the Akropolis. However, more recent finds
(such as the inscription locating the shrine of Aglauros on the north-east slope of the Akropolis,
have since offered strong evidence that it was on the east side of the Akropolis. Also Dontas
1983, 57-73; Robertson 1998, passim; id. 2005, 44. Camp 2001, 257 describes the old site as
‘several hundred meters to the east’ of the classical Agora: the exact spot cannot be settled
presently, because the modern neighbourhood of Plaka prevents full excavation of the area.
73
location of the old Agora and the reasons for a shift of the city-centre to the northwest it in
the sixth century are uncertain. After the reforms of Solon, the Agora on the north side of the
Akropolis was gradually provided with public and sacred buildings.253 From the first half of
the sixth century, remains of only few monumental public buildings can be found in the
Agora or, for that matter, in Athens in general. Among the most important early monuments
in the city are the one or possibly two temples of Athena on the Akropolis and a building in
the Agora which the excavators considered an early Prytaneion.254
Around the middle of the sixth century, public architecture in Athens began in
earnest (maps 10a-b). On the west side of the Agora, shrines were built for Apollo Patroos
and Zeus Agoraios, while in the south-west corner probably the first public buildings
appeared (maps 10c-d, 11a).255 However, the sculpture record shows no evidence of votives
being offered at either sanctuary in the sixth or fifth centuries. Most Athenian votives by far
were gifts to Athena, while Hermes is second in popularity. The problem with the latter’s
votives is that herms, listed by default as dedicated to Hermes, are in fact multifunctional
objects as well as representations the god himself.256 A number of herms from the western
and north-western areas of the Agora seems to confirm the existence of a place called The
Herms near the Stoa Poikile which ancient sources describe (map 11b). However, the evidence
for its original location is inconclusive.257
253
Possibly partly by Peisistratos: cf. Shapiro 1989; cf. map 7a.
254
For the Athena temples: e.g. Shapiro 1989, 19 (also the first two parts of this section on the
Akropolis). Prytaneion: based on Paus. I.18.3-4; cf. Camp 2001, 27; Angiolillo 1997 (10-5, 29)
concludes that the house probably had public or administrative purposes, because of the building
phases and the continuity in public use of the area later on. Cf. De Libero 1996, 100-1. The
building has alternatively been identified as the Peisistratids’ residence (Boersma 1970, 16-7, 145
no. 144; id. 2000, 54; Shear 1978, 6-7; Morris 1987, 68; Cawkwell 1995, 77; Hurwit 1999, 120;
Camp 2001, 35 (‘a plausible suggestion’); Anderson 2003, 88-92. More recently and extensively
on this topic, Losehand 2007. If the location of the old Agora east of the Akropolis is accepted,
the Prytaneion would be located under the modern area of Plaka. Cf. Dontas 1983, 60.
255
Boersma 1970, 17, 128 (Apollo), 145 (Zeus); Shapiro 1989, 50 (Apollo), 112-115 (Zeus);
Wycherley 1957, 50-53 (Apollo), 122-4 (Zeus). It is sometimes contended that these shrines and
the public buildings were built under the patronage of Peisistratos (he would then be responsible
for all the buildings in map 10), but there is no conclusive evidence for this. Cf. Camp 2001, 2838 for a more modest version of Peisistratid influence in the matter. For the fifth-century
buildings in this location see maps 10b-d.
256
If considered cult statues, they should have been excluded. For more on deities, below ch. IV.4.
257
Boersma 1970, 52, 217; Camp 2001, 65. In fact, five of six herms from the Agora were found at
the west or north-west of the site: cat. V 320, AM S 3477; cat. V 321, AM S 211; cat. V 322, Akr.
74
Apollo appears on a votive relief from the late fifth century, found to the south-east of the
Akropolis and connected to the sanctuary of Apollo Delphinios in the Ilissos valley (map
12b).258 Another relief from this period depicts Zeus, and is therefore in all likelihood an
offering to him.259 Both these dedications are from smaller find spots in Athens; a third
example, a votive base to Apollo in the Agora, was built into the wall of the Klepsydra and so
its original location is unknown.260
Two votive reliefs from the Agora are to Demeter and Kore and date to the late fifth
century (pl. 6a). Specifically, they were found in or near the City Eleusinion, the sanctuary of
the Goddesses at the end of the processional road from Eleusis (map 12a).261 It had a stone
temple and temenos from approximately 490 BC onward; some remains suggest an earlier
structure dated around the middle of the sixth century.262 It seems surprising that so few
marble votive reliefs from the City Eleusinion have survived, especially in view of the
Goddesses’ great popularity in the fifth century.263 Had their been any archaic dedications,
they might have been lost in the Persian wars; but considering that later, in the fifth century,
their numbers remain low, stone sculpture appears as an atypical gift to Demeter and Kore in
Athens. A remodelling of the city sanctuary of the Goddesses, commemorated in an
no. ?; cat. V 250, AM S 218; cat. V 319, AM S 2452. However, only AM S 2452 and the Akropolis
piece were found in or near a sanctuary: the others are either from Byzantine or modern contexts.
258
Cat. V 325, NMA 1389: Athens Other. The sanctuary of Apollo Patroos in the Agora would be a
more likely provenance (map 10c). For the Ilissos sanctuary, see Travlos 1971, 289-98; Picón
1978; Krug 1979; Miles 1980; Shapiro 1989, 66; Camp 2001, 105-6; McNeill 2005; Palagia 2005.
259
Storeroom of the Third Ephoria inv. 5a.
260
Cat. 124, AM I 5517, IG I3 950, is a pillar from the first quarter of the fifth century. A circular base
dedicated to Hermes is perhaps from the Akropolis: cat. B 163, EM 6516. The inscription indicates
Hermes Enagonaios, a rare epithet that usually occurs after the fifth century. Cf. IG I3 840.
261
AM S 1013, cat. V 270 (rel. with Demeter, Kore and Triptolemos), found in the east wall of the
Hypapanti church near the Eleusinion. A second relief with Demeter and Triptolemos (cat. V 272,
AM S 1045) was found in the ‘Valerian wall’ close by. Both date 425-400. No dedicatory
inscriptions in the record are to the Goddesses.
262
The first votive deposits date from the seventh century (Miles 1998, 16); the age of the sanctuary
added to its venerability. Cf. Shapiro 1989, 67-9. Boersma 1970, 34-5, 163, 198 argues that the
earliest temple was dedicated to Triptolemos, not Demeter. For the archaic sanctuary, Miles 1998,
22-33; for the temple of Triptolemos ibid. 35-57. The question is whether votives depicting the
goddess and the hero were offered to Demeter and Kore, or to Triptolemos. Boersma 1970, 35;
Shapiro 1989, 69; Miles 1998, 66-8.
263
Especially in the fourth century BC; stone dedications never became really numerous in this
sanctuary, though, at least judging from the finds. Miles 1998, 67, also 95-103 (ritual vessels).
75
inscription of 434 BC, may have caused a slight rise in votive reliefs dedicated to them in the
last quarter of the fifth century.264
Apparently, the City Eleusinion was not the only sanctuary in Athens which rarely
received sculpted dedications. Some smaller precincts on the Akropolis, such as Poseidon’s
on the north side and that of Artemis Brauronia in the southwest, have produced sculpted
votives (pl. 6b).265 Towards the end of the fifth century, Artemis was given sculpture more
often on the Akropolis, though her smaller shrines elsewhere in Athens have not produced
any sculpted votives.266 One relief from the Akropolis shows Artemis paired with Asklepios.267
The latter’s sanctuary on the south slope of the Akropolis (map 6a) was filled with small
votive reliefs soon after its foundation in 421/0 BC (pls. 6c-d; map 5).268 From the end of the
fifth century, 12 reliefs to Asklepios are listed in the record, all but one from the Asklepieion
or its direct environs.269 They usually depict Hygieia and Asklepios. Except for Athena, herms
and numerous statues of Nike,270 Athenians most often dedicated sculpture to Asklepios. In
view of the late arrival of his cult in Athens, this is remarkable.
264
Of six votive reliefs from the Agora in the final quarter of the fifth century, four are to Demeter or
Demeter and Kore: cat. V 172, Akr. 1348 and cat. V 324, NMA 3572, both depicting Demeter and
Kore; cat. V 270, AM S 1013 and cat. V 272, AM S 1045, including Triptolemos.
265
The pedestal EM 6319 (cat. B 33, c. 475-450) and frs. of a pillar EM 6431 (cat. B 229, c. 500-475)
carry inscriptions to Poseidon Erechtheus and just Poseidon. The dogs cat. V 117, Akr. 143 and
cat. V 199, Akr. 550, 525 have been associated with Artemis’ Akropolis precinct (Shapiro 1989,
66; Boersma 1970, 129, 214). However, Robertson agues in his overview of worship of Aphrodite
in Athens that dogs played a special role in her cult (2005, passim). If his interpretation is correct,
the dog Akr. 143 might just as likely have been dedicated to Aphrodite as to Artemis, especially
since two shrines of Aphrodite existed on the Akropolis.
266
Besides the main fifth-century temenos of Artemis Brauronia on the Akropolis, a shrine to Artemis
Aristoboule was built by Themistokles (Plu. Them. 22.2) west of the Hephaisteion; it has been
identified with a small triangular building on the corner of Od. Herakleidon and Neleus (Boersma
1970, 50, 129; Travlos 1971, 121-3; Shapiro 1989, 66; Camp 2001, 61-2 fig. 57). The temple of
Artemis Agrotera was in the south-east of the city, near the Ilissos (for literature see above n.
257). See map 1.
267
Cat. V 271, Berlin St. Mus. 941, double relief; also from Athens in general: cat. V 261, Martin von
Wagner Museum, Würzburg. From the Akropolis with Artemis alone: cat. V 239, Akr. 2674; cat. V
257, Akr. 3649.
268
Boersma 1970, 131, 215; Travlos 1971, 126-42; Aleshire 1989, 7-14; Camp 2001, 122-3.
269
The relief from outside the Akropolis was from the Kerameikos (cat. V 275; NMA 2373), the Aghia
Triadha Church. It shows an incubation scene with the god and Hygieia on a larger scale than the
mortals. It therefore seems clear that this was a votive to Asklepios, or at least intended as one.
270
Most of these were probably dedicated to Athena or Athena Nike rather than Nike herself. See
Travlos 1971, 148-57; also below ch. IV.4.
76
In addition to the gods mentioned above, some of the dedicatory inscriptions in the record of
this study mention Pan or Hermes and the nymphs, Aphrodite, and Kybele (pls. 7a-b).271
Pan’s sanctuary in the cave on the North side of the Akropolis is well known (map 5a); reliefs
to him and the nymphs probably come from there (pl. 7c).272 A likely dedication to Pan or the
nymphs (or both) is a relief which was found on the Od. Asterokopion, near the modern
observatory on the Pnyx.273
No sculpted dedications can be connected to the altar of Aphrodite Ourania in the
Agora, and neither to the small shrine of Aphrodite Pandemos below the Nike bastion.274
Some of the sanctuaries in which one might expect votive sculpture were apparently not, or
not yet, used for offerings of this kind in the fifth century. For example, at the Olympieion
(map 13a), no sculpted votives from the fifth century have been found, nor are any marble
dedications certainly from the Hephaisteion.275 Considering that several of the temples in the
Ilissos area (map 12b) date from the sixth century or even earlier and must have been highly
revered, this lack of sculpted votives to the deities involved is unexpected.276
271
Pan and the Nymphs: cat. V 321; NMA 1329. A possible relief to the nymphs is cat. V. 194, AM S
1948 (Agora) depicting a nymph and a youth holding someone by the hand, suggesting another
figure on the part that is now missing, perhaps Hermes. A shrine to nymphs was found south of
the Odeion of Herodes Atticus, but its date is uncertain (Daux 1958, 660; Boersma 1970, 141,
164; Brouskari 2002, 32-43 with ref.; Mitropoulou 1977, 74 no. 153, fig. 212. Cat. V 87, Akr.
655, is a small seated Kybele, but the circumstances of her dedication are unclear. Aphrodite is
the named recipient of an inscribed pillar, found built into the wall between the Nike bastion and
the Beule gate (cat. B. 98; EM 6425). Cf. below n. 274.
272
Travlos 1971, 417-21; Camp 2001, 119. Another cave had links to Apollo (Camp ibid.) but
evidence of sculpture from this shrine is lacking.
273
Cat. V 194. See n. 271.
274
Camp 2001, 118-9, fig. 144 J: inscriptions indicate the location of the sanctuary. See also the
cave of Aphrodite and Eros on the north slope of the Akropolis, ibid. 120, fig. 144D; also Travlos
1971, 228-32. A thorough listing and analysis of Aphrodite’s cult in Athens in Robertson 2005.
275
The Olympieion was started by the Peisistratids c. 515 BC, but not finished until the reign of
Hadrian. That would explain the absence of votives from the fifth century (Boersma 1970, 25,
145; Travlos 1971, 402-11; Camp 2001, 36-7). Construction of the Hephaisteion was started
around the middle of the fifth century and finished in the final quarter of the century: there, the
lack of votives is more unexpected. See Boersma 1970, 59-61, 139, 191, 199; Travlos 1971,
261-88; Camp 2001, 102-4.
276
Travlos 1971, 289-98. The temple of Apollo Pythios, now considered to be a building south of he
Olympieion, dates to the middle of the fifth century. Boersma 1970, 61; Travlos 1971, 100-3;
Shapiro 1989, 50. Nor are there any stone votives which can be linked to sanctuaries like that of
Dionysos Eleutherios south of the Akropolis or numerous other shrines and sanctuaries known in
Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries.
77
Even if the recipient deity of a votive is known, the place of its original dedication may be
rather difficult to establish. This is somewhat easier for the Akropolis material, where the
extant dedications constitute a closed set and Athena was by far the most frequent recipient
deity of offerings. Other gods and goddesses are much less often represented in inscriptions
or in the iconography of sculpture from the Akropolis.277 Moreover, sometimes even
epigraphic and iconographic details combined cannot prove exactly in which sanctuary
scattered votives were originally dedicated. A relief with an image of the Athena from the
Akropolis, for example, may have been offered to Athena Polias or Poliouchos, Promachos,
Parthenos or even to Athena Nike.
Last in this section, a few remarks on Athenian gravestones and cemeteries are in
order. Athens’ burial grounds stretched along its exit roads and converged near the gates of
the city walls (map 1).278 As was discussed above, the trajectory of the ancient fortifications is
particularly relevant to the material of this study.279 The most famous city walls of Athens are
the ones built just after the Persian wars thanks to the efforts of Themistokles, who went to
Lakonia to stall the Spartans’ intention to prevent the fortification of Athens. Plutarch and
Thucydides write that he was successful, and the walls were built in record time.280 However,
it is quite likely that some form of fortification existed in the sixth century already, and the
Themistoklean wall was in part just a repair or an improvement of the old circuit.281 F. E.
Winter has argued that an earlier suggestion of an oval-shaped circuit from Solonic times is
too extensive.282 He proposes a modest trajectory which ran near to the Akropolis and dated
approximately from the 560s (partly shown in map 9b).283 This, he argues, would be in line
with the evolution of fortifications elsewhere in Greece at the time. The Themistoklean wall
277
See below ch. IV.4.
278
Above p. 66. For the Syntagma cemetery and the excavated burial grounds at Od. Panepistimiou
and Od. Sapphous see Salta 1991, passim; Morris 1992, 103-27.
279
See also above p. 71. Cf. Camp 2001, 59-60; Winter 1982, passim; Robertson 1987 and 1998;
Weir 1995.
280
Thuc. 1.83.1-2; Plu. Them. 19.
281
As Boersma already noted (1970, 45, 151, plan IV, Athens). Compare also Kurtz and Boardman
1971, 70; and Hdt. 9.13, Thuc. 1.89.3; 6.57.1. The wall in the excavation on pl. 8a deserves more
attention in this respect.
282
Winter 1982, 200; the earlier suggestion Travlos 1971, 8 fig. 5, 20 fig. 28; ibid. 158 denies the
existence of pre-Persian city walls. See also: Salta 1991, 8.
283
Winter 1982, 203.
78
was the first one to include the Pnyx and the cemetery on the Agora. Its trajectory runs
mostly under the modern city.
Athenian gravestones of the sixth century can perhaps shed some light on the matter
of the older city circuit. Not many archaic gravestones have been found in the city outside of
the Kerameikos: of the few that were, none date to the first quarter, six from the second and
four from the third quarter of the century (table 2a).284 In the last quarter of the sixth
century, numbers rise to 16 examples, but from the next period there are none, and from the
second quarter of the fifth century only one, a stele.285 The Agora has produced one
gravestone from the first quarter of the sixth century, nine from the third, and seven from
the last quarter.286 With one possible example from the first quarter of the fifth century,287 18
of the 24 Agora gravestones are from the sixth century (table 2a). In the rest of Athens, it is
just the other way round: far more gravestones from the fifth century than from the sixth are
preserved. This is entirely due to the final quarter of the fifth century, whose 49 gravestones
from ‘Athens Other’ constitute the largest single-period sepulchral group from one
provenance category.
In view of the spread of cemeteries along the city walls, this pattern is not surprising.
The Agora had been in use as a burial ground in the eighth and seventh century BC, and in
the sixth century this practice continued.288 It was probably only in the early fifth century,
when the older Agora was relocated in the area north of the Akropolis and began to take its
classical form, that the cemetery was abandoned.289 Winter argues that the sixth-century
burials in the Agora had in fact been outside the wall, since the archaic city wall was little
284
From 575-550: cat. G 1, Berlin PM A5; cat. B 3, ML mnc 748; cat. G 4, NMA 3860; cat. G 78, NMA
35; cat. G 116, EM 420; cat. G. 103, NMA G 6688. From 550-525: cat. G 90, NMA 5826; cat. G 95,
NMA 1772; cat. G 80, NMA 78 and the diskos in the British Museum, cat. G 170, BM 93, whose
placement and use are unclear.
285
EM 10225, cat. G 173.
286
One from 600-575 (cat. G 9, AM S 287/1677/530/1739/1908). Nine from 550-525: cat. G 10,
AM S 1440; cat. G 11, AM S 1587; cat. G 12, AM S 815; cat. G 32, AM S 1740; cat. G 34, NYMM
12.158, AM S 1751, NMA 4808; cat. G 37, AM S 2042; cat. G 38, AM S 1736; cat. G 39, AM S
1276a; cat. G 129, AM S 1438. Seven from 525-500: cat. G 13, AM S 1890; cat. G 14, AM S 30;
cat. G 15, AM S 1185; cat. G 25, AM S 1997; cat. G 26, AM S 23; cat. G 40, AM S 1276b; cat. G
128, AM S 1386.
287
The lion AM S 1942, which could also have been a votive. See Dates table cat. G 106.
288
Even though Morris 1989, 316-7, considers the burials in the Agora late by Greek standards. Cf.
also map 8b.
289
Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 70; Morris 1989, 317.
79
more than an extended Akropolis defence.290 Inside or outside the walls, part of the area of
the Agora was used for burials in the sixth century. After 500, a lack of gravestones confirms
that the area no longer had this purpose, as the burial grounds moved to the city gates in the
new circuit.291 The wider distribution of late fifth-century gravestones over the city should be
seen in the light of this development.
The high number of gravestones from the end of the fifth century was doubtlessly
caused by the concentration of the inhabitants of Attika in the city, and the subsequent
outbreak of contagious and fatal diseases. That being said, the large quantity of grave
sculpture from the late fifth century continues into the fourth, and this is in conflict with a
decimated city population.292 A further aspect of this material is the widening range of sizes,
degrees of technical quality, and complexity in comparison to the earlier fifth and the sixth
centuries BC. In the following chapters, it will be argued that shifts in quantity and quality of
the gravestones are connected to a changing population; they are part of a wider
development in an increasingly complex urban society.
3
N UMBERS
AND PROVENANCE : AN OVERVIEW
The preceding discussion of votive and sepulchral monuments lays the foundation for more
detailed consideration of the manufacture and social setting of sculpture. More importantly, it
has investigated basic questions of method. Consequently, it can be concluded that the
chronologies of sculpture and bases as they can be found in scholarship are both usable for
the purposes of this study and sufficiently reliable. There is no evidence for a systematic
chronological inconsistency between the dates of epigraphic and archaeological material.
That being said, highs and lows in the record, especially at the turn from the sixth to the fifth
century, are not straightforward. The surrounding periods are not as devoid of monuments as
is often believed. More importantly, a similar, if slightly less extreme trend in sculpture
numbers occurs in the late-fifth century. Thus, an attempt to connect the patterns in the
290
Winter 1982, 103.
291
Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 92; Salta 1991, 58-63; Morris 1992, 134 (after 425). For epigraphic
material per gate see Salta 1991 64-9, and to a lesser extent 70-105 (later material).
292
See above n. 51.
80
sculpture of the earlier and the late fifth century to historical circumstances should be
conducted under the caveat that the political situation and the events of Athenian history in
the late fifth century are fundamentally different from those of the beginning of that century.
It was suggested in this chapter that the Persian debris peak may be quite close to
the rate at which sculpture was produced and dedicated in the half a century before the
Persian War. If so, numbers are rather modest for such a long period of dedication. This
raises questions regarding the patrons, namely: which, and how many, of the inhabitants of
Athens participated in the process of dedicating sculpture? Moreover, did they always
dedicate marble statues, or did the Athenians’ preference for votives drift from one type or
material of votive to another?
The rise of bronze votives would have been an obvious reason for lower number of
votives in, for example, the middle of the fifth century. However, numbers of bases suggest
that such a role is an exaggeration. Bases for bronze votives continue into the second quarter
of the fifth century, but from after the middle of the fifth century they occur only marginally
more frequently than those for marble statues. For gravestones, bronze never was a factor;
and though a small peak around the turn of the sixth to the fifth century appears in the grave
material, numbers of gravestones never match those of votives until the last quarter of the
fifth century. The choices of patrons, notably their preference for reliefs and stelai (further to
be discussed in the final chapter below), seems to have much to do with this phenomenon.
Provenance is the other main subject of this chapter. Not surprisingly, most of the
material is from the Akropolis. For grave monuments, the main single find spot is the
Kerameikos, in particular the Themistoklean Wall. The degree of excavation of this wall, its
original trajectory or possible predecessors pose questions which cannot be answered at the
present state of research: conjecture about the number of statues still hidden in the circuit’s
foundation is pointless. The Akropolis, however, is nearly completely excavated. The
examination of its sculpture, epigraphy and other groups of material such as terracottas, has
led to the proposition that around the middle of the sixth century, a shift in the dedication
patterns of the Athenians took place. Terracotta statues from the first half of the sixth in
some cases served as freestanding dedications in this period, or were part of architectural
decoration of small treasuries or oikoi on the archaic Akropolis. Rather than being built by
other poleis – the Akropolis was not a Pan-Hellenic sanctuary – they may well have been
offered by the city’s wealthy residents, Athenian or otherwise. Further gifts could be stored in
them, especially costly ones which were better kept safely indoors.
81
Considering this variation of votives in the earlier sixth century (some marble votives from
this period also survive), the rise of sculpture in the late-archaic period almost seems an
impoverishment: fewer or no oikoi and large free-standing terracottas survive from the
second half of the century, while more and more marble sculpture and, until the end of the
sixth century, pottery is preserved. The disappearance of the oikoi in the late-archaic period
has as yet unknown reasons: a likely cause is construction, even if it has to remain undecided
what exactly was built or when. Votive sculpture goes through a minor low in the third
quarter, but the sum of votive statues and bases stays the same. And so, Peisistratos cannot
be blamed for having curbed aristocratic display in the votive sculpture on the Akropolis.
Sculpted dedications from the earlier sixth century may have been damaged due to
the building activity, much of the sculpture from the later sixth century was destroyed by the
Persians. Either way, this sculpture could only have ended up in two possible ways: down the
hill, or into the building pits. The first option is unlikely because of the trouble involved.
Some statues might have been considered salvageable by their patrons or the sanctuary;
taking a deity’s property out of his or her sanctuary was a problem; transporting sculpture
carefully would have taken a disproportionate effort; and most importantly, where would this
material have gone? It was not found elsewhere in Athens, and the building pits on the
Akropolis itself were excavated practically in their entirety in the 19th century. Consequently,
the Akropolis sculpture from the Persian debris might be considered to quite a large extent
representative of the original numbers of marble votives until the time of deposition. That
other sanctuaries in Athens have produced far fewer marble votives, may in part be due to
poor preservation. Further possible factors, such as traditions of offering certain votives to
certain deities only, and changes in these practices over time, will be discussed in a later
chapter of this study.
In gravestones the situation is very different, since especially in the second half of
the fifth century, funerary sculpture comes from many cemeteries all over Athens. From this
period, not many private gravestones are from the Kerameikos anymore, but all the more
from other locations in the city. On respect in which gravestones are similar to votives is the
fact that the development of sepulchral monuments does not indicate any interference by the
tyrants. When funerary bases and sculptures are added up, they show a continuous rise
throughout the sixth century.
By the final decades of the fifth century, gravestones and votives were no longer as
impressively monumental as they had been a century earlier. Their shapes and sizes had
generally become modest, and easy to produce and set up in large numbers. Part of this
82
trend is the disappearance of bases for gravestones from the record, presumably the
Athenians began to insert their gravestones in the walls of periboloi rather than erect them
separately. The question remains whether such developments in votive and funerary
sculpture are mirrored in other characteristics, for example, in the position of patrons or
deceased, the recipient deities, the iconography, or in the materials of which they were made.
83
II Choices in marble
1
H ISTORY ,
MARBLE AND THE ANCIENT ECONOMY
One of the most conspicuous influences on the appearance of sculpture is the material. The
stone of a statue is in a way a primary source, a direct result of a choice someone made
2,500 years ago. Not that these choices are a simple matter. First, the material had to be
decided on (by patrons, or sculptors, or perhaps by both). Then its provenance and
availability needed to be examined; transport had to be arranged and costs addressed in
various quarters, followed by agreements about the design. Only after all this did the carving
start – during which phase the stone might yet be discarded. All the choices made during this
process are reflected in the finished product as preserved today. External sources on
transport, quarrying practices and remains of workshops can complement the picture.
The people who make these choices can be patrons, sculptors and their co-workers
in sculpture workshops, specialised painters and letter-cutters and possibly dowel-makers,
in short, all those who are engaged in a practical way in the sculpting or decorating of a
statue. Apart from artists or craftsmen, there is support personnel. The crew of cargo ships,
blacksmiths, or pigment traders are slightly further away from the manufacture of the statue
but still instrumental in it. Right at the beginning of the chain are the patrons, who will be
dealt with in a later chapter. Besides deliberate action on the part of the people concerned
with sculpture production, on a different level historical circumstances play their role. For
Athens, the Persian War is the most obvious example, but certainly not the only one. An
excellent illustration of the possible influence of historical events on sculpture is the story of
Athens’ relation with the Cycladic islands, specifically Naxos and Paros (map 13b).
In the early sixth century, Naxos had been a major exporter of local marble: many
votives in Naxian marble from this period can be found at the pan-Hellenic sanctuary of
Apollo on Delos.293 Around 540 BC, the local aristocrat Lygdamis was established as the
tyrant of Naxos with some help of Peisistratos, although Aristotle suggests Lygdamis himself
293
Kokkorou-Alewras 2000, 146-7.
84
was quite demagogical enough to achieve his goal.294 Once in power, one of his first acts was
to exile many of his fellow aristocrats. It appears this had the purpose of making a profit on
the sale of their estates, while at the same time, it offered an him a chance to rid himself of
his most prominent competition.295 Once he found that nobody was willing or could afford to
buy the land, at least not at a ‘fair’ price, he sold it back to the original owners. According to
the story, sculptures were present ‘in certain workshops’ on the exiles’ estates, and were
waiting to be dedicated at sanctuaries. Afterwards, Lygdamis ordered that the statues be sold
to the former owners or to whoever else would have them, and to allow the buyers to engrave
their names (wàst' e¦pigrafh¤nai to£ tou¤ priame¢nou oãnoma) or in other words, dedicate them.
In itself this is simply the behaviour of an archaic tyrant, and as such hardly
exceptional. Nevertheless, some aspects of the story are curious to say the least. For one, it is
very unusual that sculpture is mentioned in ancient texts at all, especially in such a relevant
way and in a relatively early period. From the point of view of art worlds, Herodotos does not
mention sculpture in contexts even remotely as informative as the brief story by Aristotle,
even though he does describe Lygdamis and his ascent to power briefly.296 This can either
294
Lygdamis had helped install Peisistratos as a tyrant in Athens, and supposedly, the latter returned
the favour in this way. See Hdt. 1.61-4; Ath. Pol. 15.2; Kokkorou-Alewras 1995, 39 n. 34; id.
2000, 148. On Lygdamis in general, see e.g. De Libero 1996, 236-43. The two tyrants exchanged
hostages (sons of rivalling aristocratic families) to stabilise their positions (Cawkwell 1995, 78).
295
Arist. Oec. 2.2 ‘… Lu¢gdamij Na¢cioj e¦kbalw£n fuga¢daj, e¦peidh£ ta£ kth¢mata au¦tw¤n ou¦qei£j
h¦qe¢lhsen a¦ll' hä braxe¢oj a¦gora¢zein, au¦toi¤j toi¤j fuga¢sin a¦pe¢doto: ta¢ te a¦naqh¢mata, oàsa hån
au¦tw¤n eãn tisin e¦rgasthri¢oij h¥mi¢erga a¦nakei¢mena, e¦pw¢lei toi¤j te fuga¢si kai£ tw¤n aãllwn t%¤
boulome¢n% wàst' e¦pigrafh¤nai to£ tou¤ priame¢nou oãnoma’. Lygdamis of Naxos, after driving into exile
a party of the inhabitants, found that no one would give him a fair price for their property. He
therefore sold it to the exiled owners. The exiles had left behind them a number of works of art
destined for temple offerings, which lay in certain workshops in an unfinished condition. These
Lygdamis proceeded to sell to the exiles and whoso else would buy them; allowing each purchaser
to have his name engraved on the offering (transl. G. C. Armstrong). Anathemata applies to other
types of votives too (see ch. III), but considering that Naxos was famous for marble rather than for
metals, and that pottery would hardly have raised the kind of funds Lygdamis seems to be after,
sculpture is the most likely possibility. Furthermore, h¥mi¢erga indicates that the votives were half
completed. Vases or bronze statues in that state would be rather unsaleable, whereas statues
which e.g. only needed to be polished were not.
296
Hdt. 1.61, 1.64. He does mention a few statues, but never because sculpture is the subject. For
example, a lion dedicated by Kroisos (1.50) is mentioned because it expresses how grateful (and
short-sighted) Kroisos was to the oracle at Delphi. Dedications of Amasis in Egypt (2.176) show
how impressive his building policy was. Kleobis and Biton illustrate the awe which their death
inspired with their fellow-citizens I.31). An exception in the naming of craftsmen by Herodotos is
Theodoros of Samos, who made a gold bowl (1.51.14-5).
85
mean that the story is apocryphal and Herodotos had not heard of it, or that he knew it but
did not think it interesting enough for his narrative. In view of the general scarcity with which
he mentions sculpture, the second option is likely. Thus, it may be assumed for now that
what Aristotle describes happened, and Lygdamis brazenly tried to auction off the votives of
the gods to fill his coffers.
The fact that he bothered to confiscate the statues can again be interpreted in two
directions. First, he may have had the idea of selling them right away, and his motive may
have been greed. That would imply that they were worth something even in an unfinished
state, and apparently enough to take the trouble of a sale. Second, it is possible that
Lygdamis thought it wise not to allow his exiled opponents to leave conspicuous symbols of
status standing around while he was settling in as a tyrant. Once he had sold them back their
own former possessions and they were presumably no longer in a position to mount any
resistance, he could safely let them have their sculpture. In that case, the story would imply
that under certain circumstances, a monumental sculpted votive at around the middle of the
sixth century was considered enough of a status-symbol to prevent its dedication if the
patron needed to be kept on a short leash.
Another element in this story touches directly on the subject of this chapter. The text
states that ‘the exiles had left behind them a number of works of art destined for temple
offerings, which lay in certain workshops in an unfinished condition.’297 The suggestion is
that the workshops in question were on the aristocratic estates and that the sculptors were
travelling craftsmen who had set up shop there temporarily, either near their patrons’ homes
or near the quarry or close to both. It has been argued that the Naxian quarries were in this
period situated on land owned by the aristocracy.298 Marble had been a major export product
for Naxos in the seventh century: by the middle of the sixth century, the island had a
considerable fleet carrying the marble abroad.299 As a result, economic opportunities for
whoever controlled the quarries would have been excellent.
However, commercial activity of this kind was apparently of no real interest to
Lygdamis. He temporarily prevented the completion of unfinished votives and the erection of
297
Transl. Armstrong (cf. n. 295). Elsewhere, he describes other aspects of Lygdamis’ tyranny, like
his, and thus Naxos’, naval power in the sixth century (Hdt. 5.28, 31). Pedley 1979, 23-4;
Kokkorou-Alewras 2000, 148-9.
298
Karakatsanis 1986, 178; Kokkorou-Alewras 2000, 39.
299
Pedley 1979, 24-5; Kokkorou-Alewras 1995, 39. Also below p. 112.
86
finished ones on the island, which presumably had been an activity for the wealthier
inhabitants now in exile. Thus, a severe blow was dealt to the Naxian marble industry. The
ensuing lull in production gave Paros a chance to move into a position of prominence in the
marble trade which it would not relinquish.300 In the Naxian sculpture trade, the popularity
which its marble had enjoyed until the middle of the sixth century was lost, even after
Lygdamis was deposed probably in 524 BC.301
The tyrant’s apparent lack of economic foresight ties in with a discussion which
extends widely over scholarship in the last century regarding the nature of ancient Greek
economics. The central question is whether the economy of the Greeks should be called
embedded, i.e. bound to traditional social or cultural values, or disembedded, a ‘proper’
economy with market tendencies. Without going into this argument too thoroughly, a brief
sketch of the main directions in it is useful, because the wider scope of the ancient Greek
economy encompasses some of the practice of crafts. In the case of sculpture, it is
particularly the quarrying, transport and trade of stone which are relevant. In other words,
any argument about professionalism or lack thereof in the sculpture network of ancient
Athens benefits from a wider economic and geographical perspective.
In the second half of the 20th century, the embedded view of ancient economies has
been most emphatically represented by M. I. Finley. In his perspective they were mostly
determined by agricultural produce, because any other economic activity than land-holding
was frowned upon by the higher classes.302 Technology, trade and craft stood in very low
regard. Of course, an overview like the current one does not do justice to the arguments
which Finley and others developed over many decades, from a discussion with a considerable
history of its own;303 but Finley’s adamant dismissal of certain factors in ancient economy is
important here.
300
Kokkorou-Alewras 2000, 148. The island of Delos had a constant number of votives in Parian
marble from the third quarter of the sixth century onward, yet no contemporary votives in Naxian
marble. Earlier in the sixth century, the Naxian presence still predominated the dedicatory
sculpture there. It will be discussed below in how far numbers of votives on Delos as well as on
the Athenian Akropolis are usable for this argument (cf. p. 104).
301
Although the timing of the crisis in Naxian sculpture is implied in the present dataset and in
Delian material (see previous note), there may have been more reasons why it occurred and why
Naxos did not recover. Cf. below p. 104; Leahy 1957, 272-3 (date); Ashmole 1972, 15.
302
Finley 1973, e.g. 17-34, 133-40.
303
The discussion has often been outlined in various degrees of thoroughness: see among others
Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1972, 11-30; K. Hopkins, Introduction, in Garnsey et al. 1983, IX-XXV;
87
The first of these factors is the supposition that the ancient ‘drive to acquire wealth was not
translated into a drive to create capital.’ In other words, the general mentality in antiquity
prevented the rise of a use of resources which could have led to a true market in the modern
sense.304 Effectively, this was expressed in (among other things) a lack of permanent market
places in antiquity: there was not enough demand to support proper shops.305 Finley
contends that the character of ancient economies is rooted in the tendency to let external
considerations, for example, of a social nature (or political, or religious) prevail over
profitability. This, in turn, is the case because economic activities are embedded in social
structures and intertwined with the views on land, labour and wealth mentioned above.306
A second contention of Finley’s which has particular relevance for this study is this:
like capital, technology and craft in general were not a driving force in ancient economies.
Thus, innovations or efficient ways of implementing such improvements which were
discovered in antiquity were not exploited fully.307 Advances in craft ‘were all accomplished
without any technical innovation, by greater mastery of already known processes and
materials, and, above all, by greater artistry.’308 The role of manufacture in ancient economy
is therefore minor: ‘There were no business cycles in antiquity; no cities whose growth can be
ascribed, even by us, to the establishment of a manufacture.’309 This may be true in a
modern economic sense, but the question is what such a stance will add to our knowledge of
the functioning of trades like sculpture in antiquity. The practicalities of ancient economic life
are more traceable than Finley sometimes suggested, as has been noted in more recent
studies about the role of workshops and even manufacturing plants in antiquity.310 The
Morris 1994, 352-4; Davies 1998, 230-242; Greene 2000; Stissi 2002, 8-9. For an overview of
the discussion and main theories in it, see also Morley 2004, 33-51.
304
Finley 1973, 144. Though the remark regards the Roman republic and early empire, it is extended
to all of antiquity; for an example ibid. p. 122. Cf. also Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1972, 28; Hopper
1979, 104, 129.
305
Finley 1973, 138. Contra Cohen 1992, 3-11 for the particular case of banking in Athens; Börner
1996 for economic infrastructure at Athens; and Loomis 1998 for professions in ancient Greece.
For more detail with regard to sculpture workshops and/or shops, see ch. III.
306
E.g. Finley 1973, 35-41, 73-5, 150-5.
307
Ibid. 139-40.
308
Finley 1965, 31; he is referring to pottery. Cf. Hopper 1979, 48, 96-9.
309
Finley 1973, 23; cf. Schneider 1992, 26
310
See e.g. Loomis 1998; Greene 2000; Harris 2002; Stissi 2002, especially 8-9. Burford (a student
of Finley’s: Burford 1969, 7) 1960, 1963 and 1969; Thompson 1971; Coulton 1974 and 1977
88
information in this field, being derived from physical remains and therefore excavation,
steadily expands.311 And though often illuminating, the discussion about how well ancient
practices fit modern theories should not hamper assessment of the actual material.
In the case of sixth and fifth-century Athens, fundamental changes took place in the
organisation of its arts or crafts. In accordance with the dynamics of art worlds, technical
aspects of archaic and early classical sculpture in Athens were not advanced exclusively by
master sculptors. On the contrary, related activities contributing to the final product changed
too, if only because they were a part of the wider socio-political shifts of their time. As will be
argued below, the chain of supply of stone for Athens offers an interesting (though partial)
view of the way in which the Athenian sculpture world and its participants operated. Ancient
sources sometimes add to this picture, but mostly it is the sculpture and excavation records
which provide an idea of the developments in marble trade. The predominance of certain
types of marble in certain periods, differences in marble for sculpture or for pedestals, traces
of the methods and techniques applied to extract and transport the stone: all these aspects
reflect both external influences and internal choices in the art world of Athenian sculpture.
The following sections will consecutively address the variations in the types of marble used
for the sculpture in this study, their provenance, quarrying methods and transportation, and
finally the people who worked in these branches.
2
S TONES
AND MARBLES
Most Athenian sculpture was made in marble, but other types of stone occasionally were
used: most important is the soft limestone common to Greece, poros. Both this type of stone
and marble are traditionally classified according to regions of provenance, for example,
island marble of the Cyclades or the Attic types of Pentelic or Hymettian (maps 13b-14a).
However, this apparently straightforward categorisation is somewhat misleading.
Determination of provenance is often based on simple visual observation. Though chemical
show that the practical side of trades in ancient Greece has been studied consistently throughout
the last half century.
311
For example, the study of workshops by Zimmer (1990) or ongoing excavations like the Agora, cf.
Mattusch 1975 and 1982, or Pheidias’ workshop in Olympia (Mallwitz and Schiering 1964;
Schiering and Letsch 1991).
89
and geophysical methods are available, the old classification is commonly used, including to
a large extent in the present study. Nonetheless, marble types in the record are mainly based
on publications from the 20th century, whose authors had ample knowledge and experience
in classifying them.312
Modern research techniques and their results are of obvious importance. One of the
most common tests for establishing the provenance of marble is stable isotope analysis,313
which investigates the presence and levels of specific chemical components of the marble,
usually carbon and oxygen. These were included in the stone during its formation, when the
calcite which is the main ingredient transformed under high temperatures and extreme
pressure into crystalline marble.314 Traces of carbon and oxygen are always present in
marble, but in varying quantities depending on the circumstances and place of formation.
Consequently, each marble type has isotope signatures for carbon and oxygen which are
characteristic for its particular region and even for its quarry. However, variations within a
region can be too small to distinguish various types of marble by means of isotope analysis.
Therefore, the question arises as to how specific and reliable geochemical and other methods
of analysing the composition are for establishing exact provenances of marble? Second, and
more important for the present study, is the question how the classification of marble types
in older publications holds up against the new methods?
In the 19th and the early 20th century, archaeologists classified types of marble by
comparing their structure and colour to samples in marble collections.315 One such
collection, compiled by German geologist Richard Lepsius for his Griechische Marmorstudien,
is nowadays kept in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen.316 Recently, Norman Herz has
reinvestigated the provenance of these marble fragments, initially through stable isotope and
microscopic analysis.317 Most of the time Lepsius turned out to have labelled so-called lower
312
E.g. Langlotz, Schuchhardt and Schrader (AMA), Richter (1960, 1962), Raubitschek (DAA). The
great knowledge and experience of conservators of Athenian museums have been wonderful in
checking marble provenance.
313
Explained by Herz 2006, 291-6.
314
Analysis with other chemical components is possible too, but carbon and oxygen have proven
most consistent for this technique: Herz 2006, 294.
315
For ancient words denoting colours of marble and their survival in later periods, Crescenzo 2006.
316
Cf. Lepsius 1890. It is clear that some of the samples in this collection are chips of originals in the
Akropolis museum and the National museum in Athens. Unfortunately it is rarely possible to
verify which statues and which samples belong together (Moltesen, Herz and Moon 1992, 277).
317
Moltesen, Herz and Moon 1992; cf. Herz 2000 and 2006; Palagia and Herz 2002, 30-1, passim.
90
Pentelic (the most frequently used Attic marble in antiquity) and Parian II marble correctly.318
Mix-ups in Lepsius’ assessment were often within one region, for example, a piece of
Hymettian marble he considered Pentelic, or one from Naxos he thought to be Parian.319
Another type of marble, from the island of Thasos, was unknown to Lepsius altogether: this
led to a lot of mislabelling, because Thasian marble was quite popular in antiquity.320
So, on closer inspection, Herz concluded that Lepsius’ visual analysis was often
correct in determining the region of origin of the marble, but less so where the provenance
within one region was concerned.321 Since the colours of various marble types from one
region may vary a great deal, this is hardly surprising.322 Grain size (often visible with the aid
of a looking glass) and foliation, i.e. the layering of the crystals, provide additional
information to fine-tune the assessment of the provenance. In short, well-informed visual
analysis is a valuable tool for determining marble provenance, as Herz and other scholars
have frequently attested.323
That being said, the results of Lepsius’ work and similar studies are imperfect.
Geochemical and other techniques can be used for a twofold purpose: to check whether the
listed provenance is correct, and to specify the provenance to a particular quarry within a
geological region. It is common to take the best known exponent of a marble type as
representative of all marble from that region. A famous example is Parian marble, which is
known as a beautiful, almost translucent white marble with a rosy patina. This type, known as
Lychnites, is quarried underground at the Spilies quarry on the plain of Maráthi on Paros
(map 13c), from veins which have been exploited ever since the sixth century.324 However,
there are in fact many other marble types from quarries on Paros.325 To give an example, one
318
Moltesen, Herz and Moon 1992, 278.
319
An overview of visible characteristics of the most important marble types used in antiquity is
presented in Herz 2006, 287-8 table 1.
320
Herz 2006, 278-9.
321
Herz 2000, 31.
322
Herz 2000, 29 and id. 2006, 288; e.g. the colour indication of Chorodaki (Paros II, below n. 326).
323
E.g. Kokkorou-Alewras et al. 1995, 95; Palagia and Herz 2002, 241, where a number of marble
objects from Delphi turned out to have isotope analysis results matching their marble listings
from visual analysis. Recently, Herz has revised this argument and contested the use of such
analysis: Herz 2006, 280-1, 285-6.
324
Schilardi 2000a, 35. Its quality was already famous in Antiquity: cf. Kokkorou-Alewras 2000, 147.
325
Including Lakkoi and Thapsana: see Schilardi 2000a passim. He notes that Lychnites (Paros I) is
studied most often because of its aesthetic quality (ibid. 35) and frequent use in major
monuments throughout antiquity.
91
produces a bluish-grey marble quite distinct from Lychnites.326 This blue-grey Parian was
often used in antiquity as well, but visually its provenance is not as recognisable as Lychnites.
Similarly, the colour of Hymettian marble (map 14a) is most widely known as grey-blue, but
one quarry on Mt. Hymettos produces a white marble which is easily mistaken for Pentelic.327
When some of the marble from a specific quarry region looks different from the most famous
type from the same area, isotope analysis and similar technologies are especially valuable.
Paradoxically, the results of isotope signature analyses can also add to the confusion.
The scattering patterns of isotopes sometimes overlap, even very much so, in marble samples
which are from very different regions and look very dissimilar. For example, the isotope
signatures of some types of Naxian marble resemble those of Pentelic.328 In this case, the
fabrics of the marbles, and most notably their grain sizes are clearly different, which can be
established with a microscope or even with a looking glass. The combination of all available
methods is therefore preferable: marble provenance indications based on observation with
the naked eye, as listed in the corpora of Greek sculpture, should ideally be complemented
with petrochemical analysis and should be matched with marble samples of which the
provenance is established with all available methods. Since the full marble database that is
required for such thoroughness is underway but incomplete,329 the more immediate question
is how traditional provenance listings may be used responsibly.
In the case of Lepsius’ collection, the comparison of his classification with the
chemically established provenances has often been positive and when the attribution turned
out erroneous, the mistake often regarded the quarry, but the region was correct. The main
lapse resulted from the absence of Thasian marble in Lepsius’ system, and this has been
corrected in more recent publications on Athenian sculpture.330 Since in the present study the
326
Herz 2000, 28-9. This marble from the Chorodaki quarry is also known as Paros II.
327
Goette et al. 1999, passim.
328
Gorgoni et al. 2002, 125. There is a difference in the negative oxygen isotope (-11) and also in
the variety of the isotopes, which is much smaller than that of Pentelic marble. See also Palagia
and Herz 2002, 240-2 for several examples of marble from Delphi where isotope values in the
artefacts are very similar, although the marble is from different regions.
329
For example, in the Asmosia series: see abbreviations.
330
E.g. Kaltsas 2001. The importance of Thasian marble quarries has become clear since Lepsius’
times: N. Herz, Classical marble quarries of Thasos, in Antike Edel- und Buntmetallgewinnung auf
Thasos (1988) 232-240; J. Herrmann and R. Newman, Dolomitic Marble from Thasos Near and
Far. Macedonia, Ephesos and the Rhone, in Asmosia IV, 293-303; J. Herrmann, Thasos and the
Ancient Marble Trade: Evidence from American Museums, in True and Podany 1990, 73-100.
92
precise quarry where the marble came from is less important than the general region (e.g.
Paros, Naxos, or even ‘the islands’), mistakes which mainly occur within one region are quite
acceptable for the purposes pursued here.
Four main types of marble occur in the data record.331 The first two, Pentelic and
Hymettian, are from the mountain ranges East and South of Athens respectively (map 14a).
The outward appearance of marble types from one region may vary a great deal:332 and this is
the case for both Pentelic and Hymettian marbles. The latter has – in its most common
variant - a bluish hue, while the best-known Pentelic marble is white when cut. Moreover,
Hymettian lacks the mica flakes which give Pentelic a slight glimmer.333 In Athenian sculpture
from the archaic period, the two most widely used marbles from the Cycladic islands are
Parian and Naxian. The latter is usually a greyish white with conspicuously large grains.
Parian may be either white and translucent or white-grey, depending on the quarry: the
former type, Lychnites, was, and still is, the most appreciated.334 The remaining stone types
are grouped here as Other Marble or as Other Stone.335 Among the latter is soft limestone or
331
To avoid confusion, the category Insular or Island marble (all from the Cyclades except for what is
definitely from Paros or Naxos) is indicated by the capital I. When the lower case is used, the
marble from the Cyclades in general is meant (so all insular marble). Attika, one geographical
region, does not need such a distinction.
332
Herz 2006, 287-8 table 1. As far as available in the publications or from observation by the
author, the characteristics of the marble (mainly its colour) have been noted in the database field
Material, while in the field Material 2, a simplified (and geographically less detailed) category has
been indicated.
333
Korres 1995, 74-5. According to Mr. Ilios (pers. comm. 2004, workshop on Od. Anapavseos in
Athens), the Pentelic marble used nowadays, from the Dionysos quarry, is especially suitable for
sculpting and inscriptions because the grains are quite small and the crystals less oblong in shape
than is often the case in Greek marble. A sculptor who has worked in both Greek and Italian
marble (the latter of which often lacks oblong crystals altogether), Mr. Schonk from the
Netherlands, agrees with this view (pers. comm. 1998, workshop Nieuwe Kerkstraat at
Amsterdam). Mr. Ilios remarked that sculptors who are used to Island marble in his experience
preferred it. I wish to thank both sculptors for sharing their expertise.
334
Above n. 324. In this study, Parian and Naxian fall under Island marble: the islands’ proximity
makes transport circumstances to Athens alike. By contrast, quarries on on island may not be
equally accessible from the sea.
335
Herz concludes in his article on the Lepsius Marbles (Herz 2002) that some of the Other marble
category may be from the island of Thasos. Since I have not seen the pieces involved, an
assessment on my part is unwarranted. For the category Other Stone, cf. below p. 99. On the
marble from Thasos among other authors: M. Brunet, Les carrières de marbre de Thasos,
DossAParis 173 (1992) 40-45; J. Herrmann, The export of dolomitic marble from Thasos. A short
overview, in Matières premières et technologie de la préhistoire à nos jours. Actes du colloque
international, Thasos, Liménaria (1999) 57-74; id. in True and Podany 1990, 73-100 (cf. above
93
poros (pl. 8b). Although it is related to marble, working this limestone is quite different from
cutting marble, which is why it has been put in the category of Other Stone.
A comparison of stone types of gravestones and sculpted dedications immediately
shows that in each group one material prevails (table 3a). Out of 338 votives 172 were made
in island marble. Interestingly, approximately half of all gravestones are in Attic marble (table
3b), leaving island marble (c. 17 percent) and Other Marble (c. 28 percent) far behind.
However, numbers of gravestones are too low for these percentages to be fully
representative, as chart 3b shows. Developments in marble types of gravestones are better
illustrated by each type’s percentage of the total of gravestones from the quarter century to
which it belongs.336 Thus calculated, the averages of the Attic Marbles and of Other Marble
each end up close to a third of all gravestones, while Island Marble averages about a fifth.
Slightly under a tenth of all gravestones is in Other Stone (table 3b, chart 3b.1).337
Evidently, the three main categories of marble were used in relatively equal measure
for Athenian gravestones in entire two-century period studied here, even though each type
has its highs and lows in absolute numbers. Average percentages indicate that in funerary
sculpture, the spread of marble types over all quarter-century periods is relatively even,
except in the last quarter of the fifth century (chart 3b). The highest number of one type of
marble before this time are 11 gravestones in Island marble from the last quarter of the sixth
century. In no other period does one type of marble exceed ten gravestones, not even if
subdivisions like Parian or Naxian in island marble are taken together as a single category.
In votives (table 3a), percentages offer a better reflection of the pattern of marble
types, because numbers are high enough to be representative. The average of Attic marble in
votives is about a third of all dedications; approximately 15 percent is in Other Marble, while
just over half of the votives from the whole period are in island marble (chart 3a.1). The
percentages are similar to those in gravestones, except for the preference for island marble
over Attic in votives. It must be noted that in the latter, too, periods with very little material
n. 330); id, Exportation of dolomitic marble from Thasos. Evidence from European and North
American collections, Asmosia II, 93-104; J. Herrmann and V. Barbin, The exportation of marble
from the Aliki quarries on Thasos. Cathodo-luminiscence of samples from Turkey and Italy, AJA
97 (1993) 91-103.
336
The average is calculated by adding up the percentages from each quarter century per marble
type and dividing them by eight.
337
Attic: 252/8, 31.4 percent. Insular, 164/8, 20.5 percent. Other Marble: 224/8, 28.0 percent.
Other Stone, 60.5/8, 7.6 percent. For the percentages per quarter century see table 3b.
94
present a somewhat skewed image, as for example the second quarter of the fifth century:
three quarters of all votives in island marble in reality comes down to six examples.338 As is
to be expected with the higher numbers, the alternative method of analysis of averages of
each marble type per quarter century offers results which are quite close to the marble types’
percentages of all votives.339
Numbers of votives in Attic and Island Marble run approximately parallel from the
early sixth century until its last quarter, but from this time until the middle of the fifth
century, there are two to three times more votives in various types of Island Marble than
there are in Attic. After the mid-fifth century, the use of various types of Island Marble
declines.340 Pentelic marble occurs in 42 out of 56 votives, i.e. about three-quarters of the
total of votives at this time (table 3a). In gravestones, the change at the end of the fifth
century is just as radical: the total number of gravestones from this period is 77, of which 56
are in Attic marble. For grave monuments this is the first period with a real wealth of
sculpture; therefore the prevalence of Attic Marble at this time has a great impact. Votives
from the late fifth century are also largely in Attic Marble, but this cannot compensate the
preceding century and a half of Island Marble as the preferred material for votives.341
Votives in Other Marble appear 51 times in the record; 45 gravestones fall into this
category (table 3a-b). In light of the total number of votives, 51 seems modest; for grave
sculpture, on the other hand, 45 is considerable. Most votives in Other Marble are from the
final quarter of the sixth century, or from the first or last quarters of the fifth century (chart
338
Three of these, EM 6542, EM 6556 and EM 6536 are fragments of basins (cat. V. 306, 314 and
315 respectively: all Island Marble). The other three are: Mourning Athena relief, Akr. 695 (cat. V
158, Parian), archer, Akr. 599 (cat. V 160, Insular), and a relief with a banquet scene, NMA 4802
(cat. V 245, Insular: possibly Naxian marble).
339
In votives, the averages are: Attic marble 30.1%, Island marble 53.4% and Other marble 16.5%.
Compared to 34%, 50.9% and 15.1% respectively, the coverage seems good in this case. See for
the numbers table 3a.
340
Three examples of 450-425: three heads from the Akropolis, of a youth (cat. V 163, Akr. 699); of
an Athena (cat. V 155, Akr. 635); and of a goddess (cat. V 278, AM S 2094) are in Parian marble.
Two examples date to 425-400: the statue of a girl Akr. 1310 (cat. V 255), and the goddess AM S
1882 (cat. V 256), found in the Agora near the post-Herulian wall, both in Parian, too.
341
From the point of view of average percentages over the whole period, the peak in Attic
gravestones at the end of the fifth century is not enough to compensate either, but this is due to
the fact that in two periods, 600-75 and 475-450, the percentage of Attic gravestones is nil.
Other marble on the other hand has only one period where the percentage remains at zero, 475450, and thus evens the score somewhat.
95
3a).342 Similar to other trends in the gravestones in this study, Other Marble follows an
irregular pattern most of the time, although its share increases steadily in the second half of
the fifth century. Marble types of gravestones seem to develop with less uniformity than
those of the dedications, but they are more evenly spread over the sixth and fifth centuries
(charts 3a-b). It is noteworthy that in the last quarter of the fifth century, there are slightly
more gravestones than votives in Other Marble.343 A similar development takes place in Attic
marble. Without a doubt, this must be explained by the circumstance that the final quarter of
the fifth century is the only period in the archaic and early classical period when sepulchral
monuments outnumber votives considerably.
Unlike insular and Attic marble, Other Marble is not a uniform category at all. Some
types of marble which are unusual by Athenian standards feature in the sculpture from this
group at the end of the fifth century.344 Some of the gravestones from this time are made of
entirely different stone than marble (namely, Other Stone: table 3b).345 Overall, Attic and in
particular Pentelic marble is most prominent in the last quarter of the fifth century in both
gravestones and votives. Low numbers of Other Stone appear in grave sculpture, but the few
votives that are not Attic are made of Insular marble, which has by that time disappeared
from the sepulchral record. Contrary to gravestones, the evidence seems to suggest that
votives were made exclusively in marble in the sixth and fifth centuries, even if the
provenance of this marble varies.
Of the local marble types from Attika, Pentelic is clearly the most popular, with 95
out of 115 votives and 77 out of 89 gravestones (tables 3a-b). Hymettian only occurs in two
dedications, one from the second quarter of the sixth century and the other from the first
342
Eight gravestones in Other Marble date to the last quarter of the sixth century; another eight are
from the third quarter of the fifth century, and 16 from the last quarter (table 3b). Of 525-500:
cat. G 112, KM P 1046, fr. of man's st.; cat. G 137, EM 10253, fr. of grave plaque; cat. G 105, KM
P 699, fr. of horseman; cat. G 88, NMA 782, finial; cat. G 152, EM 416, fr. of inscribed st.; cat. G
133, KM P 1613, fr. of basin; cat. G 171, BMFA 1987.621, diskos; cat. G 172, NYMM 1985.11.4,
diskos. Of 450-425; cat. G 45, NMA 3254, rel. with youth; cat. G 108, NMA 901, Selino, Mynnaki
and Niko's stele; cat. G 124, KM Mag. 14, lekythos; cat. G 126, AM I 2533, Kallitimos st.; cat. G
147, EM 1810, Skoteas st.; cat. G 148, NMA 2588, Nautes st.; cat. G 159, ML mnd 1795, Mannes
st.; cat. G 174, EM 10221, Chareas st.
343
Votives in Other Marble, 425-400: 12; gravestones: 16. See table 3a-b.
344
For example below p. 99.
345
Non-marble gravestones of 425-400: cat. G 154, EM 491, dark-grey stone; cat. G 156, EM 489,
black stone; cat. G 161, EM 1795, limestone; cat. G 169, EM 496, poros.
96
quarter of the fifth,346 as well as a gravestone from the third quarter of the sixth century.347
The marble from Hymettos was apparently much less popular among Athenian sculptors and
patrons. The final quarter of the fifth century, however, produces seven gravestones in
Hymettian marble, which in view of the low numbers throughout is noteworthy.348
Unspecified Attic marble consists of sculptures or bases whose marble cannot be
attributed to one particular quarry in the Attika. Nevertheless, the development of this
category over time has some interesting features. First, it only occurs four times in funerary
sculpture, all relatively modest pieces.349 In the late fifth century it disappears altogether.
Since this is the same time as the unexpected rise of gravestones in Hymettian marble, one
might suspect that some Hymettian marble is among the unspecified Attic marble. Secondly,
there are 18 votives made in the latter, all of them from before the second quarter of the fifth
century.350 Among these are several famous and well-preserved sculptures, which have been
much studied and extensively published.351 In view of the similarities between less famous
and less clearly identified types of Hymettian and Pentelic, and better-known marble from
these locations, caution in determining the provenance is laudable;352 but the general
consensus is that the marble comes from Attika, although from which part exactly is not
quite certain.
Although the categories Attic and Insular both represent non-specified marble from
a general region, they differ in one aspect. Attika has no major marble quarries apart from
346
Surprisingly, the Moschophoros, cat. V 2, Akr. 624 was made from Hymettian marble. From the
first quarter of the fifth century is an owl, cat. V 201, Akr. 1355, 245.
347
The Chairedemos stele, cat. G 34, NYMM 12.158, AM S 1751, NMA 4808.
348
A lekythos, cat. G 24, NMA 815; stele with painted picture, cat. G 33, NMA 1929; relief cat. G 71,
MRM B 15; and several inscribed stelai: for Teisimachos cat. G 138, AM I 6349; for Aristippos, cat.
G 46, NMA no. ?; for Zogros cat. G 153, EM 11049; and Aristokrates cat. G 158, EM 10299.
349
Dated 550-525: fr. of finial, cat. V 129, AM S 1438; fr. of relief, cat. V 38, AM S 1736. From 525500: stele of Theron, cat. G 36, AM I 2056; fr. of male head, cat. G 25, AM S 1997.
350
Four of 575-550: small seated Kybele, cat. V 87, Akr. 655; fr. of kore’s arm, cat. V 185, Akr. 399;
rel. with Graces, cat. V 132, Akr. 586, 587; four horses of chariot, cat. V 110, Akr. 575-580.
Dated 525-500: two korai, cat. V 80, Akr. 464 and cat. V 81, Akr. 603-291; head of kore, cat. V
154, Akr 639; kore fr., cat. V 228, Akr. 612; three seated women, cat. V 91, Akr. 618, 3781, 473;
cat. V 92, Akr. 329, 489; cat. V 93, Akr. 252; Nike, cat. V 99, Akr. 166. From 500-475: two korai,
cat. V 69, Akr. 687, 313, 457; cat. V 77, Akr. 601, 308; several kore frs.: cat. V 187, Akr. 419 (fr.
of feet); cat. V 334, Akr. 425; cat. V 336, Akr. 4843; and a seated woman, cat. V 94, Akr. 3514.
351
See e.g. cat. V 110, Akr. 575-580, horses of a chariot; or a relief with the Graces, cat. V 132, Akr.
586 and 587.
352
See above n. 327.
97
Hymettos and Pentelikon.353 Island marble, though in practice most often Parian or Naxian,
can come from quite a few other Cycladic islands, too.354 In other words, where Attic marble
just means unspecified, but most likely Hymettian or Pentelic, the category Island marble can
contain marble from many Cycladic destinations except Naxos or Paros.
Of course, the odds are that island marble is Parian, since already in antiquity it was
reported as one of the most favoured marbles. Naxian was used only in six votives in the
sculpture record, while there are 49 in Parian marble.355 The bulk of votives in Island marble,
117 examples, as well as most of the Parian marble date to the last quarter of the sixth
century and the first quarter of the fifth (table 3a, chart 3a).356 Funerary sculpture shows a
similar pattern, but in much lower numbers.357 The difference is that hardly any island marble
occurs in gravestones from the first quarter of the fifth century (table 3b), while 47 examples
in contemporary votives survive.358 In total, 60 votives from this period are in various types of
353
Limestone used in some of the older buildings on the Akropolis comes from the hills near Piraeus,
and dark limestone of good quality was quarried near Eleusis (cf. Ampolo 1982; Korres 2000, 10).
See below p. 125.
354
E.g. the Cycladic island of Tinos has marble quarries which though not very famous, were used in
Antiquity (L. Lazzarini and F. Antonelli, Petrographic and isotopic characterization of the marble
of the island of Tinos (Greece), Archaeometry 45 (2003) 541-552. None of the marble from this
and similar areas can be found in the database: this may be the result of a research tradition
overly focussed on certain quarrying regions, or it may actually be the case that many quarries on
other islands mostly produced marble for local use. The case of Thasos (above p. 91) seems to
lend weight to the first reason, though. Much work still is necessary in this area.
355
Of these six examples, three date to 600-575: lamp (cat. V 222, Akr. no ?); fr. of lamp (cat. V 156,
Akr. 225-6); top plate of basin (cat. V 283, EM 6521a-b). From 575-550: korai Akr. 677 (cat. V
16) and Akr. 619 ( cat. V 15). From 475-450: rel. with banquet scene, cat. V 245, NMA 4802.
356
In island marble, 525-500, 50 examples; 500-475, 47. In Parian marble 525-500, 23 votives;
500-475, 13.
357
Two gravestones in Island marble: from 500-475, cat. G 106, AM S 1942 (Parian); from 450-425:
fr. of basin, cat. G 130, KM P 1374 (Insular). AM S 1942 is a lion which might have been a votive,
or part of an architectural group (Harrison 1965, 29-30 no. 92). It was listed as a gravestone here
because it cannot be linked to a building. The relation with workshops like that of the sima lions
of the Ares temple in the Agora is irrelevant: these workshops would also have worked on freestanding statues. Moreover, the interpretation of this piece as a relief is not quite convincing, and
it is more likely that it stood on its own.
358
Seven gravestones of Parian marble date to 525-500: kouros, cat. G 2, KM P 744-6; unfinished
head, cat. G 14, AM S 30; head of male statuette, cat. G 15, AM S 1185; lion, cat. G 23, KM P
1053; rel. with warrior, cat. G 35, NMA 4801; the so-called Rayet head, cat. G 100, NCG 418; and
the Marathon runner rel., cat. G 175, NMA 1959. Of the same date in the category Island marble
are: fr. of kouros, cat. G 13, AM S 1890; rel. with warrior cat. G 83, NMA 34; Man and dog stele,
cat. G 40, AM S 1276b; fr. of rel., cat. G 82, NMA 87. For votives in island marble, see the Votives
table in the database on the CD.
98
island marble, but in the second quarter of the fifth century they drop to six.359 This is
doubtlessly the result of the general fall in votive numbers. Afterwards, all island marbles
disappear from the record except for Parian marble, of which votives continue to be made in
very small numbers throughout the fifth century (table 3a).360
Despite the popularity of marble, other stone types sometimes appear in the
sculpture record. In the first quarter of the sixth century, poros is relatively important for
gravestones: it is used in four out of nine statues from that period (table 3b), which makes it
the prevalent material for that time.361 This proportion of poros drops in the later sixth
century (despite the general increase in sculpture), but even in the fifth century it is still
occasionally used.362 Given the common association of poros with the early stages of Attic
sculpture this may seem odd, but in gravestones, peculiar choices of stone occur more often
than in votives.363 For example, two stelai from the end of the fifth century were made from
‘dark stone’ (pls. 8c-d).364 One of these, the stele of Dorkion and Kallis, is unlike any other
material found in Athens and certainly not marble. It looks as if it was eroded by water, with
what might be described as a bubbly top surface.365 The breaches are very smooth, though
split off rather than polished. The provenance for this material may be Tanagra,366 a Boeotian
359
See above n. 338 for votives in Island marble from 475-450. The only two other sculpted votives
from 475-450 are: cat. V 250, AM S 218 (small bearded head: Pentelic); diskos, cat. V 338, EM
6058 (Other marble: white).
360
See above n. 340.
361
Cat. G 20, KM I 461, st. of Semiades; cat. G 96, KM P 1133, poros st. with incised floral motifs;
plain st. in the Kerameikos museum (cat. G 135, KM P no. ?: listed limestone); frs. of lion (cat. G
103, KM no.?).
362
Two limestone gravestones from 425-400: cat. G 155, EM 487 (listed as poros: IG I3 1363f; Salta
1991, 175 n. 1777); cat. G 161, EM 1795 (IG I3 1237; cf. Salta, 173 n. 1765).
363
E.g. cat. G 169, EM 496, grave st. of Apollodoros: unworked ‘crude stone’, inscription in Boeotian
script (IG I3 1363e; Salta 1991, 174 n. 1775, 175 n. 1785). Wycherley 1974, 59; Ridgway 1993,
26-7, Floren 1987, 12-3.
364
The st. of Pherenika, cat. G 154, EM 491; st. of Dorkion and Kallis, cat. G 156, EM 489 (see next
note). The former is dark-grey, like slate or basalt, with jagged breach surfaces (IG I3 1363f, Salta
1991, 175 n. 1777).
365
EM 491 (cat. G 154) looks like a kind of limestone or even marble. The light grey colour suggest a
provenance outside of Attika. The conservator of the collection, Mrs. M. Tsouli, is of the opinion
that this material looks Tanagraean (pers. comm. at the Epigraphical Museum, 2004), as
suggested in IG I3. I wish to thank Mrs. M. Tsouli for her help and interesting discussion of these
pieces. Cf. IG I3 1363b, Salta 1991, 174-5 n. 1771.
366
Cf. Salta 1991, 174 n. 1771, 175 indicates that the stele was found with several others which
seem to have been erected for Boeotians, e.g. the stele of Pherenika, cat. no. G 154, EM 491, IG I2
99
ring to the names inscribed may support this suggestion. A dark stone like this occurs in the
corpus of Boeotian votive and grave reliefs, especially some incised stelai typical of the later
fifth century.367 The inscription, roughly carved with a blunt pointed chisel, has a graffito-like
quality which is also unusual in the fifth-century gravestones of Athens.
Summarising, marble from Attika is the most common in Athenian sculpture with in
total 204 votives and gravestones. Of these, 172 are in Pentelic marble. Considering that the
quarries were conveniently nearby and known since the seventh century, the advantages of
Attic marble are obvious. Nonetheless, the various island marbles come second only just,
with 201 pieces. Most of these are votives from the Akropolis, dating before the mid-fifth
century. Attic marble often occurs among these archaic votives, too, but its bulk is from the
later fifth century. Gravestones have more variation in marble types than votives and even
some other stones than marble, especially in the late fifth century.
In the sixth and fifth centuries, the inhabitants of Athens moved from island marble
imports to local marble for their sculpted votives; and although for their gravestones they
preferred Attic marble, at the same time they widened the range of stones used for
sepulchral monuments. The question is why they did so. Did the aesthetic quality of the
island marble no longer suit their taste? Was island marble no longer acceptable, for example
because of political reasons? Or is it because gravestones were more personal than votives,
and the choice of marble less important? These questions are connected to the exploitation
of quarries and more general historical circumstances. Fashion was probably a factor as well,
to be discussed later in this chapter. It is likely that the provenance of types of stone was
linked to their value, not only from an aesthetic or a technical point of view, but also
commercially and in terms of status. If a type of marble was considered less beautiful or
cheaper, some patrons may have preferred to use it only for bases: and this would give an
important insight into their choices.
1028 no. 4, Hondius 128 no. 5, Salta 1991, 175 n. 1777. Its stone is described in IG as dark as
well, but contrary to the Dorkion and Kallis stele, it is marble, of a light blue-greyish tint.
367
For examples of these stelai see Schild-Xenidou 2008, 290-6 pls. 20-6. Dr. V. Stissi (pers.
comm.) of the Tanagra Survey informs me that this stone occurs among the survey material.
100
T HE MATERIAL OF BASES
The preceding overview of marble use has shown the main difference in materials for votives
and gravestones: in the latter, other stone than marble is sometimes used, while no such
category exists in the votives.368 Apparently, the Athenians were more flexible when choosing
the material for a gravestone than when doing so for a votive. In this section, the material of
the bases and pedestals will be investigated, in order to find out whether the stone which was
chosen is more similar to the pattern of the votives or to that of the gravestones.
Numbers of gravestones in Other Marble are higher than those of votives. In this
category, the provenance of the marble is unclear, which nowadays mainly means it is hard to
recognise; this will have been the same in Antiquity. If it mattered at all to patrons which
material was used for their gravestone or votive, it stands to reason that the marble’s quality
had to be recognisable. That said, much of the surface would have been invisible, covered
almost completely by paint which hid its texture and translucence.369 Bases, on the other
hand, are more likely to have been left unpainted, except for their inscriptions:370 this may
have added to the importance of the choice of material for bases. A final factor is the
structure of the stone which had to be suitable for carving or for an inscription.371
Contrary to votive sculptures, approximately three quarters of the votive bases are
made of Attic marble: 196 out of 246 (table 3c, chart 3c). Of these Attic bases, 185 are in
Pentelic marble. Second and third among the votives bases are island marble and limestone,
with 33 and 14 examples respectively. Other Stone appears three times in votive bases.372
368
Naturally, this does not prove that in sixth and fifth-century Athens, no other stone than marble
was ever used for votive sculpture, but it cannot have been often, because Other Stone is now
absent from the record.
369
This aspect will be addressed in the discussion on co-operation and organisation of crafts. See
below, ch. IV.3.
370
It should be noted that some bases are decorated with carved reliefs (e.g. the ball-players’ base,
NMA 3476, cat. B 27, or the base with horsemen, KM P 1001, cat. G 26); this suggests that bases
with smooth surfaces which now appear undecorated might have been painted with similar
motifs. Cf. below p. 213.
371
Pedestals are usually investigated separately from the objects they supported, with sporadic
cross-references where the link between sculpture and base is certain (e.g. Keesling 2003). It is
doubtful that pedestals were looked upon similarly in antiquity, let alone that there is evidence for
any such attitude regarding bases.
372
Cat. B 18, Akr. 10261. capital base, 550-525; cat. B 92, EM 6285, base, 525-500; frs. of pillar
with capital, cat. B 52, Akr. no. ?, 475-450.
101
There are only 42 funerary bases (charts 3c-d), but the difference in development is clear.
Out of 15 sepulchral bases in Attic marble, 14 are Pentelic. There is only one base in Island
marble;373 ten bases are in limestone374 and 16 in Other Marble. As in sepulchral sculpture,
the division of materials is much more even than in votives, and a preference for one material
is absent. Again, unusual types of stone appear more often than in votives, although the
difference is smaller than in sculpture.
Developments of funerary bases and sculpture run parallel until around the middle of
the fifth century (table 3e, charts 3e.1-2): the bulk of sepulchral bases is from the sixth
century, while grave sculpture peaks in the final quarter of the fifth century. After the middle
of that century, practically no sepulchral bases are preserved, while grave sculpture flourishes
and a preference for Attic marble develops. In short, the similarity in materials continues as
long as sepulchral sculpture and bases evolve along the same lines, and ends when the two
trends diverge. Poros or limestone is used occasionally in funerary bases but no obscure
stone types occur, as was the case in funerary sculpture.375 For grave bases, choices are
apparently limited to limestone or Attic marble; the rest is unspecified.
The discussion in this section has shown that the stone types of funerary sculpture are more
varied than those of dedications: not only does a group of non-marble gravestones exist, but
also, the proportion of Other Marble (potentially not a major marble type) is much larger in
gravestones than in votives (table 3e). A third point is that the division of the marble types in
grave monuments (both sculpture and bases) is on average quite even until the middle of the
fifth century. In votives, on the other hand, island marble in dominates in the sixth century
and Attic in the fifth, leaving no room for an even spread of materials over the period studied
here. The choice of stone in votive bases is even more monopolised by Attic marble with
about four fifths of votive bases.
373
Cat. B 263, KM I 322, for votive in honour of an Olympic victor (Jacob-Felsch 1962, 39 n. 124.1;
Willemsen 1963, 110 no. 2; McGowan, AJA 99 (1995) 615 n. 2; Kissas 2000, 48-50 no. 16).
374
Of 600-575: cat. B 287, KM no. ?; base with fr. of stele. Of 575-550: cat. B 188, NYMM 16.174.6,
base for stele); cat. B 190, EM 10364, fr. of base for stele; cat. B 268, KM A 359, Aeolian capital
for statue. Of 550-525: cat. B 154, EM 13486; cat. B 159, KM I 424; cat. B 265, KM no. ?, all bases
for stelai; cat. B 185, KM I 425, base for statue. From 525-500: cat. B 267, EM 10635, Antiphanes
base (stele); cat. B 103, EM 10635, base for stele.
375
That being said, there is one case where the marble is described as dark grey, which suggests at
least an unusual type of marble: the base for the stele of Lampito, which was carved by Endoios
(cat. B 126, EM 10643; cf. IG I3 1380; Jeffery 1962, 130 no. 24; Kissas 2000, 66 no. 36).
102
In gravestones, the main categories of marble appear in similar numbers (except in the final
quarter of the fifth century) and some unusual stones occur, suggesting that patrons could
choose whatever stone they wanted. For votives there was either less to choose from, or a
more restricted sense of what was and was not fitting. Apparently, Athenian sculptors carved
gravestones from a wide range of stone types, whereas they were unwilling or unable to do
so in votive monuments. The patrons’ role in this is hard to establish; but if, for example,
popular supply regions of marble to Athens were prevented from delivering because of
historical events – the example of Lygdamis springs to mind, or the Persian wars – it might
have been a matter of necessity rather than choice on their part. Whether the marble trade
was indeed subject to such factors will be discussed in the next section.
3
W ORK
IN THE QUARRIES
Most marble used in Athens arrived in one of two possible ways. Locally, at Pentelikon and
Hymettos, marble was lowered down the slopes of the two mountain ranges (east and south
of the city; maps 14a-b) by means of carts or sleds. Island marbles had to be shipped to
Attika, then hauled to the city from Piraeus, which presumably drove up the effort and cost.
In this section, several aspects of these procedures of transport are discussed: who decided
on the marble type, the practicalities of supply, the cost of marble and transport, and
whether the latter affected the choice of materials. The first two aspects bear on the division
of labour and the ensuing status of craftsmen. If the patron determined which marble would
be used for his or her statue, the chain of production would be different from one in which
sculptors decided. A crucial factor is the role of quarrymen. Their labour, the transport of
marble and its cost belong to the work of the support personnel. These aspects will be
investigated below to obtain a more complete view of the course of the marble from the
quarry to the workshop.
The marble quarries which came into use when monumental stone sculpture
emerged in Greece after the Early Iron Age were on the Cycladic islands (maps 13b-c).376
376
Fuchs and Floren 1987, 8-10; Martini 1990, 39; Kokkorou-Alewras 1995, 40. Quarrying during
the Bronze Age was small-scale, as far as can be established, and seems to have come to a halt
after the Mycenaean period: for example, Waelkens et al. 1988, 88; id. 1990, 47, 50-1.
103
The island of Naxos is frequently mentioned as the main provenance for marble in this early
period of archaic sculpture, before the emergence of Parian and somewhat later of Pentelic
marble.377 A schematic view of the development of marble use (Naxian, then Parian, then
Pentelic marble) is not warranted, at least not in Athens. Most Naxian pieces on the Akropolis
date to the seventh or early sixth centuries (tables 3a-b).378 Three votives in Naxian marble
date to the first quarter of the sixth century, two to the second quarter and one to the fifth
century BC.379 In gravestones Naxian marble appears in four examples from the first and
second quarters of the sixth century.380 These low numbers, however, do no impair the
importance of Naxian marble for the rise of Greek sculpture: the early exploitation of Naxian
quarries is certain.381
Carving techniques as well as methods of extraction of stone from quarries were
adopted from the Near East and Egypt.382 The influence of the latter is generally believed to
have gained momentum in the seventh century, as a result of the trade settlement at
Naukratis in Egypt, of Greek mercenaries who had fought for pharaoh Psammetichos I.383 In
Egypt, systematic quarrying had been practiced for centuries, so it stands to reason that
aspiring Greek sculptors would have learned the craft there – especially since the beginnings
of monumental Greek sculpture probably coincide with the Greek settlement at Naukratis.384
However, recent studies suggest a slightly different picture. Cutting and extraction
techniques which are used in early-archaic Greece have parallels in Hittite rather than
Egyptian quarries. The Egyptians, Greeks and Hittites separated blocks from the surrounding
377
See e.g. Ridgway ASGS1 46; Kokkorou-Alewras 1995, 37; Sturgeon 2006, 32.
378
Chemical analysis of marble labelled insular could pinpoint provenance and thus support such
predominance.
379
Above n. 355.
380
From 600-575: cat. G 6, NMA 3372, 3965; cat. G 9, AM S 287/1677/530/1739/1908. From 575550: cat. G 4, NMA 3860; cat. G 94, Third Ephoria inv. no. ?
381
Pedley 1976, 18; Kokkorou-Alewras 1995, 37-40.
382
Earlier examples of stone sculpture in Greece, particularly of the Daedalic style in Crete, are
usually linked to the Near East, mainly Syria and, to a lesser extent, Anatolia. See e.g. Ridgway
ASGS1, 29-36; Boardman GSAP, 13. For architectural sculpture from this period, e.g. I. Beyer, Die
Tempel von Dreros und Prinias A und die Chronologie der Kretischen Kunst des 8. und 7. Jhs. v.
Chr., Freiburg 1976.
383
Cf. Casson 1933, e.g. 198; Richter SSG1, 51; Ridgway 1969, 98; Hurwit 1985, 197; Martini 1990,
104-5; Waelkens et al. 1990, 52-4 n. 50; Boardman GSAP, 18. For the presence of workshops at
Naukratis see Mattusch 1996, 2-4 (bronze working); Stissi 2002, 86-92, 124-44 (pottery);
Sturgeon 2006, 33, 36.
384
Waelkens et al. 1990, 48.
104
stone by cutting narrow trenches around them, before splitting them off by means of wedges
(pl. 9a).385 Egyptian quarrymen mainly used punch mallets to remove the stone in the
trenches.386 In the Near East and Greece, on the other hand, early tool marks in quarries
indicate that the main implement used to cut out trenches was a light pick hammer.387
Moreover, the Greeks appeared to have made their tools in iron from the start, including the
wedges for splitting the blocks from the rock face; the evidence suggests that the Egyptians
used bronze tools and wooden wedges until a relatively late date.388 So, quarrying techniques
as applied by the Greeks in the seventh century were widely spread in the eastern
Mediterranean at that time and had come to Greece through various trade routes rather than
exclusively from Greek apprenticeship with Egyptian sculptors.389 Naturally, this does not
preclude that some skills were learned directly from Egypt.
One way or the other, Naxos (and some other regions in Greece, e.g. Samos) had
thriving sculpture workshops in the seventh century, connected to their ample supply of local
material. Early development in places where good marble is available and conveniently
positioned for transport cannot be a coincidence; and since quarrying, once mastered, is a
repetitive rather than a complex procedure, it did not take long before many quarries were
operational after the know-how had spread to the Cyclades. Nonetheless, acquiring these
skills cannot always have been easy. A daunting aspect of quarrying is the appraisal of the
marble, which will often have cracks or flaws hidden beneath the surface. To find a block
large enough for a statue without faults in the marble which might ruin the statue in an
385
Kozelj 1988, passim. Another possibility is to drill rows of holes around the block in which
wedges are placed. The block is split by pounding on the wedges. This is called the pointillé
technique. Though time-consuming, this method wastes a minimum of marble and is efficient in
small quarries. Among the examples from archaic Greece is Apollonas on Naxos. Cf. also Adam
1966, 42-4; Coulton 1977, 45; Waelkens et al. 1988, 106-7 (use of wedges: 1003-4); id. 1990,
63-4; Schneider 1992, 159.
386
Waelkens et al. 1990, 54.
387
Ibid. 52-3. The horizontal grooves left by this method of using the pick is in some quarries still
visible. See also Adam 1966, 5; Sturgeon 2006, 33.
388
Waelkens et al. 1990, 88.
389
E.g. Adam 1966, 5-11; Ridgway 1993, 35-7; the latter believes the Greeks learned in Egypt, from
where the skill spread to Greece, initially to Naxos or Samos (ibid. 33-8). Cf. Coulton 1977, 45;
Waelkens et al. 1990, 52-3. The role of Cyprus in this transmission of skills should not be
underestimated, as was pointed out me to by Dr. Fanni Faegersten of Lunds Universitet, Sweden,
in a paper given at the Amsterdam seminar Local Colour. Ancient painted sculpture from East to
West: Painted and Inlaid Statuary of the First Millennium BC (March 2006). See also I. Jenkins,
Archaic Kouroi in Naucratis: The Case for Cypriot Origin, AJA 105 (2001) 163-79.
105
advanced stage of carving, demands much skill and experience.390 Another tricky moment is
when the block is undercut to split it off from the rock face (pl. 9a): apart from the obvious
danger involved, most stones tend to split in a specific direction, which must be found out
and used for good result.391 It has been argued that for large blocks, this is so difficult and
requires such teamwork that it was probably performed by closely related groups of workers,
for example families, among whom the skill was passed on from generation to generation.392
The origins of quarrying techniques in Greece and the exploitation of quarries in the
seventh century are particularly relevant for the early stages of Greek sculpture as well as its
subsequent development. The strict hierarchical organisation of quarrying in Egypt was,
according to some, taken over by the Greeks. If true, this would explain certain aspects of
Greek quarrying and sculpture practices.393 Most important is the division of labour between
sculptors and quarrymen, and the practice of pre-cutting statues in the quarry. Did sculptors
go to quarries to choose the marble or even extract blocks themselves or did they only
provide specifications from a distance? Or did, on the other hand, quarry masters do all this
work and more, roughing out statues until relatively close to the final surface?
Several archaic Greek quarries have yielded unfinished, sometimes colossal archaic
sculpture. A famous example is the Dionysos or Hermes in a quarry on the north side of the
island of Naxos (map 13b) on the coast near the village of Komiaki.394 The statue was carved
to a surprising level of finish, but was evidently abandoned before anyone attempted to move
it: it is still attached to the surrounding bedrock. The reason for this lies probably in cracks in
the marble of the head,395 though other impediments for such a large project can quite easily
390
Blümel 1927, 5; Ashmole 1972, 16.
391
Korres 1995, 12, 74-5; id. 2000, 14. Cf. above n. 333.
392
Burford 1962, 76; Waelkens et al. 1990, 62. The question is what role slave labour played in
Greek quarries. Waelkens suggests slaves mostly worked in removing debris, but opinions vary:
e.g. Schilardi 2000, 45; for a slave as a sculpture patron, see below ch. IV.4.
393
Ridgway 1993, 37-8, suggests that the Greeks initially worked in quarries to learn the craft by
doing preliminary work. The differences in details of Greek and Egyptian kouroi would result from
this workshop hierarchy: details which the Greek apprentices were not allowed to do by the
Egyptians, they created their own designs for. She immediately indicates the problems adhering to
the theory, however. Cf. below p. 114.
394
Pedley 1976, 18; Kokkorou-Alewras 1995, 40 (and cat. K 60). There are more examples on
Naxos, e.g. the kouros near the village of Melanes in the west of the island. For an overview see
Kokkorou-Alewras 1995.
395
Blümel 1927, 6; Ashmole 1972, 19-2 (flaws); Boardman ASGS, 19 (accidents). The statue is dated
to the early fifth century BC.; earlier examples prove similar practices in the sixth century
(Kokkorou-Alewras 1995).
106
be thought of. This example and others show that in archaic times, monumental statues were
in principle pre-shaped in the quarry.396 The reasons for doing so are evident: carving a
block to a few inches from the intended surface lowers its weight substantially, and may even
halve it.397 In view of the effort and the high cost of transport of heavy freight,398 any
opportunity for a reduction would have been made the most of.
The next question is who performed the on-site carving. In his analysis of archaic
island workshops, J. G. Pedley suggests that: ‘A foreign master … may have been allowed to
visit Naxos to supervise the cutting of blocks to his specifications by Naxian quarrymen.’ 399
Other scholars propose similar scenarios, some of them based on more recent and therefore
better known sculpture practices, such as Michelangelo’s complaints about the long wait in
the quarries while searching for and extracting suitable – inspiring – blocks of marble.400 The
degree of similarity between ancient practices and later parallels is difficult to determine.
Ancient authors hardly wrote on this subject, and though many sculpture techniques have
changed remarkably little or not at all since antiquity, there is no guarantee that all aspects of
the work have stayed the same over time.
In fact, interesting developments in quarrying are attested from the archaic to the
Hellenistic period. The light quarry pick, a sharp tool used in the archaic period to cut the
splitting trenches, was gradually replaced by a bulky pick-hammer. While this tool expedites
extraction, it also produces more waste than the light pick. Because of the bulkiness of the
pick-hammer, it has a slight outward tendency when used, which is remedied by regularly
changing the direction of the strokes (cf. pls. 9b-c).401 As a result, the cutting trenches are
396
Blümel 1927, 6-16; Forbes 1966, 179 (speaking mainly of Roman quarrying methods); Ridgway
1969, 100-1; Burford 1962, 76; Kokkorou-Alewras 1995 passim; Korres 1995; Sturgeon 2006,
33-4. Cf. Wurch-Kozelj 1988; and Schneider 1992, 159 for similar procedures in architecture,
e.g. capitals and column drums. Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 137 suggest that this practice
continued in the Classical period.
397
Ridgway 1969, 101; Ashmole 1972, 17-8. Coulton 1977, 45 argues that the custom of precutting in quarries only developed in the later sixth century (with regard to architectural blocks).
Contra Schneider 1992, 159.
398
For a discussion of transport and its cost ancient Greece see below p. 123-7.
399
Pedley 1972, 19.
400
E.g. Ashmole 1972, 16-7. An interesting experiment by Tony Kozelj resulted in an extraction time
of twenty-two and a half hours for a block of 1.0 x 0.50 x 0.25m by two men. He found the work
very heavy and impossible to do for very long stretches. It required at least two men for a block
this size (Kozelj 1988, 36-9).
401
Waelkens et al. 1988, 97-8. The light pick leaves neat horizontal strokes while traces of the pickhammer are groups of curved grooves (a festoni ) at irregular angles. See pls. 9b-c.
107
wider and extraction is less economic; but the need for increased quarry output apparently
outweighed the greater loss of stone. In the Spilia quarry on Mt. Pentelikon (pl. 9d), parallel
grooves typical of the light pick were found in the upper regions of the quarry, while curved
traces of the heavier axe are preserved in lower, slightly more recent parts.402
In the Spilia quarry, this new technique was first used some time between the archaic
and Hellenistic periods. The transition occurred at different times in various parts of the
Mediterranean, and even in different quarries of a single region.403 This lack of
standardisation of tools and methods of quarrying illustrates the importance of the
quarrymen’s individual choices. Knowledge of what worked on ‘their’ stone and preferences
for certain cutting techniques were decisive, even if new methods came into use elsewhere.
Perhaps it is unjustified to view innovations in ancient quarrying technology through modern
eyes, as changes in procedure which aim to improve efficiency and to maximise profit, which
inevitably makes them normative if they prove to work well.404 At least until Roman times,
quarrying in Greece seems to have been a highly individual matter. Nonetheless, it would be
rash to categorise this individualism in quarrying practices in Finley’s terms, as nothing more
than improved technical skill and greater artistry. The adoption of a faster if less frugal
method of extraction at a major quarry like the Spilia on Mt. Pentelikon suggests that here, at
least, production speed was more important than preventing waste. Whether commercial
considerations could have been at the root of stepping up the output of the quarry will be
discussed later in this section.
In any case, the persons in charge of the quarries seem to have had a great deal of
freedom in choosing their methods of extracting the stone, and this, in turn, implies they
were free men.405 The skill and experience required for proper supervision of the work may
have brought them a certain status within their craft. About the labourers lower in the quarry
hierarchy, hardly anything is known. After the disastrous Athenian expedition to Sicily in 413,
Athenian hostages were forced to work in the quarries of Syracuse or imprisoned there.406
402
Ibid. 97-102; Korres 1995, 78-91.
403
Waelkens et al. 1988, 101. Schilardi 2000, 52 notes that lower quarry beds need not even be later
than higher ones in all cases (although it mostly holds true for the Spilia quarry).
404
See e.g. Greene 2000 and above p. 88.
405
Cf. Ashmole 1972, 18, who argues that in architecture, the masons came with the marble, based
on the peculiarities of the clamps and dowels.
406
Thuc. 7.86.1-87. Quarries were regularly used to hold large groups of prisoners of war; e.g. the
limestone quarries at Piraeus for the Syracusans (Xen. Hell. I.2.14).
108
Thucydides describes how of all the captives, only the Athenians and their Italiote allies were
not sold into slavery but held in the quarries indefinitely, which probably meant they worked
at extracting the local stone.407 The treatment they received from the Sicilians, however,
would have made these hostages a particularly unfit workforce, suggesting emotional or
political rather than economic motives for keeping them at the quarries. In ancient mining,
slaves are known to have formed most of the labour force, for example, extracting silver at
Laureion in the south of Attika.408 Mining was a particularly unpleasant job and mines were
places where criminals and hostages were sent. Moreover, the exploitation of mines, though
profitable, was considered unworthy of the leisured class.409
The comparison of mining and quarrying is, however, questionable. First, quarrying
requires more technical insight and experience than mining, if the mine is established and
certainly in open air mines. The majority of miners could be slaves without relevant skills. It is
likely that in quarries, too, specialised foremen supervised workers who lacked such technical
expertise. However, quarrying would have been impossible without the day-to-day presence
of at least some skilled masons to supervise the work.410 In a large quarrying operation there
are tasks, such as clearing debris and pulling ropes, which anybody can do. Few people
would have volunteered for these jobs, and so it is quite likely that slaves or criminals were
made to do them. Reversely, some of the workers possessed high levels of skill: the building
accounts of the Erechtheion mention citizens, metics and slaves working together on the
architecture and sculpture of the temple.411 Apparently, slaves found enough motivation to
do a good job in these projects, and some of them must have had ample knowledge. In sum,
quarrymen were in all likelihood a mixed group: experienced surveyors and quarry masters
(locals and non-locals) led the work, and both free men and slaves cut and extracted the
stone, while inexperienced apprentices, or slaves and other forced labour were mostly set on
tasks for which little particular skill was required.
407
Forbes 1969, 177 contends the Athenians worked the limestone quarries on a large scale. For a
nuanced picture cf. Burford 1962, 75-6; Lolos 2002, 204.
408
See Forbes 1969, 231-2; Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1972, 140; Schneider 1992, 74-5; and
Schilardi 2000, 54.
409
Forbes 1969, 228-9 n. 37. Regarding the gentility cf. Burford 1962, 43. This was not limited to
quarrying: any ‘industry’ was deemed inappropriate. Also Davies 1984, 69-71, 97, 116-7.
410
Cf. Burford 1963, 32.
411
IG I2 472-4; Burford 1962, 42; Lauter 1974, 12-5. More on this inscription below, p. 188.
109
It is commonly assumed that the techniques of quarrying changed only marginally before
Roman times. As was mentioned earlier, however, the evidence suggests otherwise. Although
technical change before the Roman period is not spectacular, it does occur: the types of tools
as well as their uses changed over time, which had positive consequences for the extraction
output.412 More importantly, the scale of quarrying changed in the course of the sixth and
fifth centuries. Marble went from a rather exclusive commodity to a basic material for both
sculpture and up-scale architecture.413 Influenced by the growing market, quarrying
operations had to expand and quarries became potentially valuable assets. This development
is illustrated by the rare sources on exploitation of quarries and marble prices.
Whether a block of marble was more expensive in the early sixth century or in the
late fifth is unknown. The commercial value of marble is not commented on in surviving sixth
and fifth-century literary sources: stone seems to have held little interest for ancient
authors.414 In the rare cases where it is mentioned, it is in a practical sense (for example, how
hard a stone is or how difficult it is to work it) or because of unusual characteristics, like fireresistance.415 Despite this literary neglect, the knowledge of stone in the field must have
been impressive. In the temple of Asklepios at Epidauros, at least four types of stone were
used.416 The core of the platform of the temple of Asklepios, the stoiba, was built of
limestone, probably local. Poros from Corinth was used for the steps, the colonnade and the
cella walls; the pediments and akroteria were made in Pentelic marble, and dark grey
limestone from Argos served to lay the pavement in the cella of the temple. In many cases
the inscriptions reveal that masons and sculptors from the region of the quarry came over to
work the stone.417 In view of the wide range of stones used in the project, each with their own
intrinsic qualities, and the lack of experienced resident stoneworkers at Epidauros, this was
probably a wise strategy.
Epigraphic testimonia of stone construction are inconclusive about marble prices.418
As a rule, transport constituted a large part of the budget; in building accounts, prices
412
See above pp. 107-114.
413
Ashmole 1972, 12-5; Snodgrass 1983, 18.
414
Forbes 1966, 177-9; Schneider 1992, 31-3.
415
Overview of ancient sources in Forbes 1966, 177-81; cf. 169.
416
Burford 1969, 57, 169, 193 table VI.
417
Cf. below p. 123.
418
In contrast to precious metals: Aleshire (1992) has shown that by the Hellenistic period, the
votives of the Athenian Asklepieion in precious metals show a pattern where lighter (i.e. cheaper)
110
sometimes include the cost of the stone. More often, however, no specification for the stone
is given, and listed prices apparently covered only quarrying and transport.419 If the actual
cost of the stone itself was hidden in this way, perhaps it did not amount to much. This is
also suggested by delivery prices in building records where transport is listed separately.
Some quarries were owned by sanctuaries, or controlled by them through the
political channels of their polis.420 In her study of the builders of the Epidaurian Asklepieion,
A. Burford argues that quarries generally operated within the economic structure of the city in
whose territory they were situated.421 That is not to say that either party actually derived
income from the quarries. Rather, it seems to have been standard practice to use available
stones mostly for local building projects, probably without charging fees for the stone
proper. Naturally, the final accounts of a newly built temple would in such cases be settled
cheaper than if the stone had had to come from elsewhere, making a substantial difference in
the overall cost to the sanctuary or polis. However, regular profits could only be obtained by
selling the marble, which would entail systematic export: the quality of the stone in question
had to be quite high.422 For those poleis which had good quarries on their territory, the
monetary value of marble appears to have depended on export more than on local usage.
When the Parians first exported their marble in the early sixth century, it may have
been for trade or exchange.423 By the end of the sixth century BC, however, they began to sell
their marble commercially, and the ensuing economic growth of the island suggests that it
was profitable.424 Ownership of the island quarries in the sixth century is uncertain, but it has
been proposed that they were the property of the landholders on whose estates they were
located.425 Perhaps in the fifth century, but certainly by the fourth, this seems to have
examples cluster into a few peaks, while more expensive, heavier dedications are much more
evenly spread, suggesting that the former were bought ready-made for an equivalent price in
drachmai, while the latter were commission-made.
419
Burford 1969, 175.
420
As in Eleusis, where the deme Eleusis decided about the quarry rather than the sanctuary: Ampolo
1982, 252.
421
Burford 1969, 173. Insightful views on the legal context of quarries in Ampolo 1982, 254-6.
422
In view of this, Glotz 1926, 153 suggested that only marble and hardstone quarries were brought
under polis control, while those of less exportable stones were allowed to remain in private
hands. For evidence to the contrary see below p. 112); also Burford 1969, 173 n. 4.
423
Tomlinson 2000, 139 suggests gift exchange, at least in the earlier sixth century.
424
Schilardi 2000, 53.
425
Above n. 298.
111
changed. By then, stone was often sold for cash, which went to the polis. An example of this
is the so-called aktites petra, a limestone from the Akte peninsula close to Piraeus (map
14a). In fourth-century inscriptions from the Asklepieion at Piraeus, the demos stipulates that
monies generated by the quarries would pay for building sacrifices in the sanctuary’s newbuild.426 Thus, the Piraean quarries must have been rather lucrative, even though they
produced limestone rather than the more desirable marble. Since the proceeds went to the
demos, the quarry must have been publicly owned. Another indication that this was the case
is the fact that they were used to detain prisoners of war.427
In the fourth century, quarries near Eleusis were the property of the sanctuary and
leased out for exploitation.428 Here too, earnings were used for a religious festival in honour
of Herakles in Akri, to whom the quarries were dedicated.429 Public or sacred control of
quarries was apparently widely spread in ancient Greece. The exploitation of quarries,
however, was often left to private contractors. Because of the lack of documents, it is difficult
to establish who was responsible for what in quarries. For example, an unfinished limestone
column drum from a quarry south of Assos near Corinth was commissioned by, or belonged
to, the people: it is inscribed with the letters DA (for DAMOSION, the people’s).430 But as
Yannis Lolos points out in the publication of the piece, this can be interpreted in various
ways. The whole quarry may have been state property and the drum served as a boundary
stone. Alternatively, it may have been private property, but the owner had to provide material
to the state, one of which was this column drum.431 Finally, the state might have bought this
drum. A problem of the latter two views is that the block was left behind: if it was sold or
offered as payment for the lease, why was it not used? Lolos rightly argues that the size of
426
IG II2 47, lines 28-32; Ampolo 1982, 252-3; Lolos 2002, 204.
427
Burford 1969, 173-4; Ampolo 1982, 255; Lolos 2004, 204. The quarries on Sicily where
Athenians were held after 413 BC were also state-owned. The silver mines at Laureion were under
control of the polis. They were leased out to contractors who ran them (Lolos 2004, 206 n. 19
with ref.). Alternatively, at Ephesos in the third century BC, the land around a quarry was let while
the quarry remained polis property; the city of Troizen exploited a privately owned quarry around
the mid-fourth century: Lolos 2004, 206; also above n. 409.
428
Ampolo 1982, 252-4; Lolos 2002, 204.
429
Ampolo 1982, 253-5; Lolos ibid.
430
Lolos 2002, 201-3. This inscription is unique since no other examples of a similar kind are known
from the pre-Roman period in Greece. For an interesting Roman example, see Asgari 1988, 119.
The inscription in that case is INRA, the meaning of which has proven elusive so far.
431
In later times, this was not uncommon. Sometimes the land was rented out without use of the
quarries, as in Ephesos in the early third century BC (Lolos 2002, 205).
112
the quarry belies a lease or private ownership.432 Public ownership of this quarry is therefore
plausible, but the fact that the site had to be marked by means of an inscribed column drum
suggests that other quarries in the Corinthia were in private hands. Had they all been polis
property, there would have been little need for a mark.
By the late fifth century and further into the fourth, quarries which produced usable
stone could be commercially profitable if properly exploited. Marble and limestone were
commodities which had to be paid for, except of course if one held regalian rights over a
quarry. It follows that even though some quarries may well have been privately owned, most
of those who needed marble for building or sculpture paid for the material. Self-evident as
this might seem from a modern perspective, in ancient Greece it was probably seen
differently: it is quite dubious whether stone had to be paid for in the early archaic period.433
Admittedly, no quarrying records survive from the sixth century, and from the early fifth
century there is only the odd mention in historical texts.434 It is all the more worthwhile to
examine the archaeology of the quarries and the evidence of the sculpture proper.
As was shown in the previous section, the ‘private sector’ of Athenian sculpture
preferred island marble in the sixth and early fifth centuries, especially in votives from the
end of the archaic period. In this category, insular marble occurs two to three times more
often than Attic marble.435 The islands from which this marble came had sculpture schools
well before any of the mainland centres evolved, thanks to the large available stock of marble
nearby. However, the expanding production of island sculpture cannot be attributed to the
presence of good material alone; demand for the product was another crucial factor.436 Since
quarries of high quality like Naxos or Paros were still small in the early archaic period, the
most desirable marble was relatively rare. In the course of the sixth and fifth centuries, the
output of these quarries increased, and this development raises questions. Who fetched stone
at the quarry in the sixth century and did this change in the fifth? Did the increasing scale of
quarries influence the way in which sculpture was ordered by patrons? Was stone ordered
regardless of the sculptor or did the sculptor come with the stone?
432
Lolos 2002, 206
433
It must be said that most of the evidence dates to the fifth century and later. Cf. above n. 423.
434
E.g. Hdt. 2.180 and 5.62 on the Parian marble which the Alkmaeonids commissioned for the front
of the Apollo temple in Delphi.
435
See above p. 94.
436
As noted by Pedley 1972, 19.
113
In the early stages of archaic sculpture, Greek sculptors took on Egyptian proportion
standards known as the Canon, which served to set up the design and roughly place the
anatomy of the figure on the block.437 The Canon made it easy to pre-cut statues in the
quarries, since the position of protruding parts was determined by generally known and
applied rules. Later, when designs of statuary became less standardised (as, for example, in
the group of Theseus and Prokrustes on the Athenian Akropolis (pl. 10a),438 pre-cutting
would be difficult for anyone except the sculptor himself; and the risk of damage during
transport would be unacceptably high.439 Obviously, this does not apply to objects such as
small stelai, which constitute a large part of Athenian votive and sepulchral sculpture from
the later fifth century. Thus, the need for sculptors to come to the quarry to rough out their
sculpture would seem less pressing in the classical period.
Most of the marble delivered to Athens in the second half of the fifth century came
from the Pentelic mountains, where large–scale quarrying had developed for the fifth-century
building projects. Had sculptors wanted to go and fetch the marble, it would have been easily
accessible; but as it was delivered to the city anyway, they may hardly have needed to go
there. The building projects on the Akropolis had provided Athens with a regular supply of
stone, and potentially with marble leftovers from construction. That marble intended for
architecture was sometimes reused for private monuments is illustrated by the gravestone of
Nautes, son of Eudemides of Torone, which is in fact a reused marble roof tile.440
Changes in quarrying procedure probably started after the middle of the sixth
century, when many Greek poleis began stone construction in earnest. Quarries were
undoubtedly smaller in extent, capacity and number of workmen before then, and may have
been under control of private landowners rather than the state. Most Athenian votives from
the late seventh and early sixth centuries are made of island marble and relatively small,
usually lamps or basins: the blocks of stone required were manageable and for many of these
pieces it is possible that they were exported as finished or nearly finished products.441 If this
437
Adam 1966, 6; Guralnick 1973; Martini 1992, 42-3; Ridgway 1993, 33-5; Boardman GSAP 2.
438
The complete design of this statue (cat. V 119, Akr. 145, 370) we can unfortunately only guess at:
part of one hand is all that remains of Prokrustes.
439
Hollinshead 2002, 227, points out that even in Roman times there is no conclusive evidence as to
whether sculptors came to the quarry or quarrymen prepared the stone on-site before shipment.
440
Cat. G 148, NMA 2588. The shape indicates it was a roof tile. Regrettably, publications do not
provide specifications as to the marble type. For the status of the deceased see below ch. IV.4-5.
441
Apart from the famous perirrhanterion Akr 592 (cat. V 1) there are four lamps: cat. V 122, Akr
190; cat. V 156, Akr 225-6; cat. V 223, Akr. 3869; and cat. V 222, Akr. no. ? The other votives
114
was the case, it was less necessary for sculptors to travel from region to region looking for
work at the beginning of the sixth century, like they are known to have done in later times.442
As yet there was little competition from local sculptors – at least in many parts of Greece –
and patrons may have visited the islands to order votives or gravestones.443 However, two
korai in Naxian marble (one in pl. 10b) are among the votives of Athens in the second quarter
of the sixth century, and they were larger and more risky to export in a finished state.444 It is
more likely that they were roughed out at the quarry, but finished in Athens.
At Delphi, votives in Naxian marble show that it was rarely used by sculptors who did
not have any ties with the island, either by birth or because they had worked there.445 In the
early period, there is evidence of sculptors who went to Samos and Delos to finish and set up
large votive statues which they had made.446 Workshops on the islands thus may have been
relatively sedentary until the second quarter of the sixth century, in particular the ones near
the great sanctuaries.447 At the religious festivals of these locations, Athenian and other
mainland visitors could be introduced to island sculpture and persuaded to commission
pieces for dedication on the island or at home. This ties in with the ancient custom of
from this period are kore Akr. 62 (cat. V 62, Other Marble) and frs. of a basin, EM 6521a-b, cat. V
283. All the pieces except the kore are in Island marble or Naxian marble. Beazley, JHS 1940, fig.
12-3 sees similarities of Akr. 3869 with Samian types of lamps. For the export of marble lamps
see Kokkorou-Alewras 2000, 146.
442
Signatures attest to sculptors’ mobility: below ch. III.3. For itinerant bronze workers in earlier
times (notably from the 11th to 8th century BC) see De Polignac 1996, 60.
443
The monumental kouroi of the early Kerameikos would be an exception (e.g. cat. G 5, NMA 71;
cat. G 6, NMA 3372, 3965, the Dipylon Kouros (pl. 4c); or cat. G 19, KM P 1698, the Kouros of the
Sacred Gate (pl. 27c). For the origins of the sculptors in question see: Deyhle 1969; Richter 1960,
46 no. 6, 47 no. 9; Boardman GSCP, 23-4 fig. 62; Floren 1987, 251 n. 3, 252 n. 8; Niemeyer
2002, 23-30, 40-6.
444
Authors agree that the statues, Akr. 619 and Akr 677 (cat. V 15 and V 16 respectively) were made
by a sculptor from the islands, perhaps a Naxian, who was probably influenced by sculpture from
Samos. See for example Schrader AMA 63-4 nos. 22-3, pl. 33-4; Richter 1968, 47 nos. 58-9,
figs. 194-200; Rolley 1994, 178, 247, 252, 280, 283, fig. 281; Ridgway 1993, 143, figs. 148-9.
445
Palagia and Herz 2002, 243. The examples they mention are the group of Kleobis and Biton in
Delphi, whose signature is connected to the Argolid, and early-archaic Naxian pieces on the
Athenian Akropolis (see n. 441). Many of the latter are lamps; and though at least one of them
(Akr. 3869) is related to Samian types, this can also mean that a Naxian sculptor was influenced
by Samian sculpture. Moreover, since small objects could have been shipped from the islands as
finished products, they need not have been produced in Attika at all. It is dubious whether these
actually are made by non-Naxians; even if they are, they are very rare.
446
For example, sculptors from Chios working in Athens and on Delos: below p. 158.
447
Cf. Risberg 1992 for the presence of bronze workshops in sanctuaries.
115
combining religious festivals with markets.448 Thus, sculptors in the seventh and early sixth
centuries who were trained on the islands could stay, if they wanted; they could have made a
living from commissions by other islanders and periodic assignments from elsewhere. It was
at sanctuaries that sculptors’ services were most required, so it made sense to live nearby.
After the first decades of the sixth century, Athens and other poleis got their own
thriving sculpture manufacture. Competition from the locals became stronger, and the
sculptors of the islands had fewer commissions from poleis further away. On an island like
Naxos, without a sanctuary of Pan-Hellenic stature of its own, this new situation may have
prevented the local workshops from recovering after the rule of Lygdamis; many sculptors
may have taken up travelling as a result. Another reason why sculptors at the beginning of
the sixth century might have been more sedentary than their successors could be their
connection to the quarries. Naturally, sculptors who were trained in the local marble knew it
better than anyone, and preferred to work in their material. Unfinished statues in several
quarries have been cut with much knowledge about the effects of carving the stone, not just
about extraction.449 This suggests that in early archaic sculpture, the extraction and precarving of statues before transport was done at least in part by the sculptors. Moreover, until
the era of stone temples, the demand for island marble was hardly so great that large-scale
quarrying operations were necessary or economically interesting. In the early sixth century,
many of the larger pieces for export travelled with their sculptors to other islands, avoiding
transport by land as much as possible. Smaller ones, like lamps, appear on mainland sites,
one of which is the Athenian Akropolis.
Because of the rise of marble architecture and of the large Pan-Hellenic sanctuaries,
the market for marble expanded. More marble had to be extracted;450 it was shipped to more
remote places; and sculpture became larger and more complicated.451 The latter development
perhaps increased the need for sculptors to get the marble themselves and deliver and
448
Sinn 1996, 67-8.
449
Above n. 394. The example is later: the early period is represented by several pieces in the article
by Kokkorou-Alewras from 1995, e.g. 40-3 and ibid. cat. K 17, K 21 and K 26. The evident order
of the cutting, with a good deal of carving done before the statue was even cut loose, also points
in this direction.
450
For example, the earliest evidence for quarrying in tunnels at Maráthi on Paros is from the late
archaic period (Schilardi 2000, 53). The veins which were accessible from ground level were
apparently used up by that time.
451
The development can be traced in the database. Architectural sculpture may have added to the
expanding scope of Athenian free-standing sculpture in size and design from c. 550 onwards.
116
complete commissions at their final destination. Sculptors could, of course, have opted to
send their specifications to the quarry, especially if they knew the men who worked there. For
travelling island sculptors, however, their ties to home would have made such visits
appealing, providing them with a good excuse to get the marble personally. Once local
centres of sculpture production emerged, as in Athens, this type of connection was severed;
and the relation between quarrymen and sculptors must have changed with it.
Sculptors could obviously not travel for commissions and work in the quarries at the
same time. Therefore, when considerable numbers of signatures of island sculptors start
appearing on monuments from the mainland, the two groups must have become more
separate. Only in the early sixth century can they have overlapped to a large extent, when
sculptors as yet seem quite settled on the islands, close to their local quarries. Later in the
sixth century, travelling sculptors still visited to get marble from home. But by the fifth
century, sculptors and quarrymen had grown apart.452 For example, the majority of sculptors
who worked on the Parthenon are highly unlikely to have visited the Pentelic quarries. In sum,
the connection between quarrymen and sculptors, mostly islanders, had been strong in the
early sixth century and their activities may have overlapped quite a lot. By the end of the fifth
century, however, Athens had quarry masters who supervised a workforce of slaves and daylabourers extracting stone for the city. By then, the division of labour of the ancient sculptors
and quarrymen was as complete as it would ever be.
Master builders and sculptors undoubtedly still went to the quarries at times to select
stone and specify their wishes, but they probably did so less than their predecessors in the
early sixth century. In the case of Athens, there was little need. The regular marble supply to
the city functioned smoothly.453 Moreover, the presence of excess marble in the city, in part
left-overs from the building programme, allowed Athenian sculptors, especially those who
did relatively standard and smaller work, to design their pieces to fit an available block rather
than vice versa. The range of their activities narrowed while their specialisation grew.454
452
Interesting evidence is given in Abraldes 1998 on the cooperation between sculptors in Delphi
and Epidauros. However, by the late fourth century, a sculptor named Molossos apparently sent
finished or near-finished work to Olympia: the inscripton lists the cost of the wrapping materials
(FD III, 5.30; Abraldes 1998, 18).
453
See below p. 119.
454
On specialisation, also in other trades in the research period, Harris 2002; for sculptors see
below, p. 150.
117
In sum, the sixth and fifth centuries saw an expansion of quarrying. Sculptors who had
initially had close relations to quarries spread out over Greece from the second half of the
sixth century on, by and by leaving the quarrymen the specialists of their trade. Stone
architecture was a crucial factor in this process. By the end of the fifth century, it is unlikely
that marble for large building projects was quarried under direct supervision of a master
sculptor or architect, who was needed at the building site at least as much as in the quarry.
As a result, much of the extraction work must have been left to quarry masters. The process
of choosing stone in the quarry thus went slowly out of the sculptors’ hands. Around the
same time, the masons at some quarries, for example at the Spilia quarry in the Pentelic
mountains, apparently started to use a less time-consuming but more wasteful method of
extracting the marble. Evidently, speed became an important factor.
Thus, quarrying developed higher levels of specialisation and labour division, and an
increasingly commercial approach to both the execution of the work in quarries and their
management. The great demand for stone in the later sixth and fifth centuries (mostly driven
by architecture) resulted in more quarries, larger workforces, and expanding infrastructure.
4
T RADE
AND TRANSPORTATION
Technical advances in the transport of marble in the sixth and fifth centuries partly developed
as a result of its rising popularity in the sixth century and partly from growing engineering
skills. Both the marble supply and the infrastructure needed to meet requirements of ever
more ambitious building projects and statuary at the time.455 Some early quarries on Naxos,
e.g. the Apollonas quarry where the abandoned statue of Dionysos lies, are practically on the
sea shore (map. 14a).456 As demand grew and veered towards specific types of marble (e.g.
later in Athens, island marble was replaced by Pentelic), quarries were opened which were not
so conveniently located. The largest group of marble from one island in the record, Parian,
comes from various quarries in different parts of Paros (map 14b). Most of these opened later
455
As in quarrying, many early methods of transporting stone were derived from the Near East and
Egypt. See also Coulton 1974, passim.
456
Above n. 394.
118
than the quarries on Naxos, but their eventual exploitation was much more extensive both in
geographical scope and in time.
Already in the second quarter of the sixth century, dedications on the island of Delos
are more often in Parian marble than in Naxian.457 By the third quarter of the sixth century,
no votives in Naxian marble can be found on Delos, a situation which is very similar to Athens
(chart 3a). It is interesting that Parian marble in general became so popular in the sixth
century, for by no means all of the Parian quarries produce marble of Lychnites quality, and
some are difficult to reach. Most of the better known marbles come from quarries in the
centre of the island, near the villages of Lakkoi (Chorodaki, Paros II; map 14b) and Maráthi
(Lychnites or Paros I).458 The latter site is about four kilometres from the nearest ancient port
which had sufficient infrastructure to load the heavy blocks of stone onto vessels, which is
Naoussa on the north coast of the island. Lakkoi is situated only slightly west of Maráthi, but
has relatively easy access to the port of Paroikia on the west coast, only two and a half
kilometres away.459 The stretch from Lakkoi to the port is downhill, whereas Maráthi lies
across a ridge further east. So, from the Lychnites quarries, the shortest stretch as the crow
flies was not the most accessible route, since it entailed hauling the stone over a steep hill.
There was much less effort in following the four-kilometre route to Naoussa down a torrentbed which is now blocked.460 This may well explain why the Lychnites quarries came into use
later than the Chorodaki ones, or than the more easily accessible quarries on Naxos.
Some time after quarrying on Paros began, the infrastructure of the transportation
routes on the island was improved with paved slipways.461 Although the pavement does not
survive on Paros, some of the postholes used for securing the cargo with ropes have been
457
Although in small numbers: nine Parian against four Naxian votives (Kokkorou-Alewras 2000,
148). In later times, Parian marble remained popular: it was exploited on a large scale in the
Roman period (Sturgeon 2006, 44). Herz 2000, 31 points out that of the 118 samples of the
Lepsius collection (see above p. 90), 106 were Parian. Of these, 53 were from the Lakkoi quarries,
i.e. Chorodaki marble, while only three were Lychnites.
458
Schilardi 2000, 35-6. Two more types of marble at least were quarried on the island in Antiquity,
one near Aghios Minas (Paros III) and one near Thapsana (Herz 2000, 27-9; Gorgoni et al. 2002,
125-6). According the authors of the latter article, the outcomes of petrochemical research on
marble from Chorodaki and Aghios Minas turn out very similar; the fourth marble type from Paros
has been little researched but is, according to the authors, very different. Cf. also Herz 2006, 288.
459
Schilardi 2000, 53.
460
Ibid. 37.
461
Ibid. 53. The exact moment is unclear, but quarrying at Maráthi went underground in the late
archaic period: indicating a higher level of technological development and expanding exploitation.
119
found. In Attika, lithagogia roads are better preserved (map 14b). In order to avoid that loads
would pick up too much speed, some slipways, for example those at Delphi or on Paros,
meandered down the mountains:462 a few extremely steep slopes needed to be overcome to
get the stone from the quarry or to its destination. In the case of the road from the Pentelic
mountains to Athens, however, this was apparently deemed unnecessary, as it ran relatively
straight downhill (map 14b).463 For the stretch from the quarry to the beginning of the road
itself, sledges were sometimes used which were pushed over wooden tracks to facilitate the
dangerous job of clearing large blocks from the quarry (pl. 11a).464 A construction in wood or
stone would even out the terrain to facilitate the movement of blocks to the start of the road.
They were then loaded onto sledges or carts by means of a ramp (pls. 11b, 12a-b). If the
track went down, the sledges could be used for the next part of the journey too, but if a level
area had to be traversed, carts were more common (pls. 12a-b).465 It was important to
complete the transport during the summer months, when the roads were dry and hard.466
The Pentelic lithagogia roads in some places had cut-out ruts corresponding to the
axle width of the carts, and postholes which held poles for securing loads every so many
metres (pls. 13a-c).467 Similar installations have been found at the diolkos in Corinth.468
Draught animals, most often oxen, were requisitioned from local farms for large building
projects, or in prestigious cases, the animals’ owners may have volunteered.469 If the road
462
Wurch-Kozelj 1988, 59.
463
Details of the route in Korres 1994, 70-1.
464
Wurch-Kozelj 1988, 60; Korres 1994 32 fig. p. 33.
465
Coulton 1977, 141. He also describes methods where the block would be built into a large roller
(141-3 fig. 62), if the pressure in the axle of normal carts was untenable. Cf. Schneider 1992,
163, 237 fig. 17.
466
Korres 1994, 38, 104.
467
Goette et al. 1999, 83; for the postholes on Pentelikon see Orlandos 1959-60, figs. 31-3; WurchKozelj 1988, 59; Korres 1994, 32-4.
468
Burford 1969, 185. Blocks for the column drums of the Telesterion in Eleusis were brought from
Pentelikon by somewhere between 19 and 37 yoke of oxen (IG II2 1673; Schneider 1994, 163). If
the farms were leased from the sanctuary, the use of the animals may have been part of the
contract. See for such dealings e.g. J. Harvey Kent, The Temple Estates of Delos, Rheneia, and
Mykonos, Hesperia 17 (1948), 243-338.
469
Burford 1963, 33; id. 1969, 185, 189. In Epidauros volunteering may have occurred, but it is hard
to establish because there is no notion of standard prices (Burford 1969, 36, 87). Payment
ensured that the person‘s name was recorded, so some monetary compensation was often
expected. Korres 1994, 38 and 104 contends that in the case of the Akropolis, carts were drawn
by mules rather than oxen.
120
system from the quarries to the construction site was sufficiently well-equipped, as between
Mt. Pentelikon and Athens, Eleusis or Piraeus, hoisting devices such as pulleys and winches
could be used to unload the blocks directly onto the site once they had been delivered
nearby.470 If the destination of the marble was a longer distance away, as Epidauros was from
Pentelikon, or Athens from the islands, it had to be loaded onto ships.
Blocks of marble for life-size figures, not to mention the larger-than-life kouroi or
korai which were occasionally made in the sixth century, can weigh half a ton or more.471
Consequently, it was essential that blocks were lowered extremely carefully and under no
circumstances were allowed to fall, not even for a few centimetres onto the cargo ship’s
deck.472 A safe method was to load the ship with sand, raising its water line: the block would
be dangled just above the deck, and the ship was made to rise to the stone by pouring out
the sand.473 This was safer than shifting the blocks aboard on rollers, which could easily
cause the ship to capsize. Unloading blocks equally brought the risk of damage: a fall could
make the stone worthless instantly.474
By the end of the sixth century, Paros was selling local marble for revenue to among
other places Delphi, where it was used, for example, in treasuries and for the front of the
Apollo temple.475 As far away as Selinus on Sicily, details of the metope figures on the temple
of Hera were made of Parian marble.476 Paros would retain this prominent position in the
marble trade for a long time. In the early fifth century, the Athenians used Parian marble for
their treasury at Delphi, and later for parts of the entablature and sculptural decoration of the
470
Burford 1963, 29-33 (Parthenon: 10 km distance from the Pentelic quarries); also Wurch-Kozelj
1988, 57-8. Cranes were known at least from the end of the sixth century BC onwards (Coulton
1974, 18; id. 1977, 144).
471
Snodgrass 1983, 21-2, suggests a quarter ton for a life-size kore after completion of (most of)
the carving. Pre-cutting would reduce weight considerably. One m3 of marble weighs c. 2.75 tons
(Schneider 1992, 162).
472
Burford notes that similar precision was needed when loading stone on or off carts, as is
illustrated by the specification of the loading costs of Pentelic marble for the Parthenon (IG i2
339-353; Burford 1963, 24, 33). Of course, reducing the weight by pre-cutting would be
impossible for architectural materials,
473
As in Egypt and the Near East: see for example Humphrey et al. 1998, 462 (Plin. HN 30.67-70);
Heizer 1966, 825.
474
Burford 1969, 188.
475
Tomlinson 2000, 139.
476
Ashmole 1972, 12-4: in the Heraion at Selinus, the uncovered skin of female figures in some of
the metopes was of Parian marble in the otherwise limestone temple.
121
Hephaisteion and the figures of the Erechtheion frieze.477 In all these cases, the Pentelic
quarries were operational and could have provided the Athenians with the necessary stone.478
Their reasons to choose Parian marble can be many: they may have preferred it (though they
did not use it for the Parthenon), or they may have stocked up Parian marble for some years,
so that they had a ready supply for the details of the Hephaisteion and the Erechtheion.479
To reach the sanctuary at Delphi, Parian marble had to travel three legs on land and
two by sea. Lychnites had to be brought down from Maráthi to Naoussa and loaded onto
ships. The freighter passed the diolkos at the Isthmus of Corinth, whose ruts eased the run of
ships across the Isthmos. Either the entire ship would be hauled over, or the cargo would be
offloaded, transported and reloaded.480 After landing at the port of Kirrha in Phokis,
depending on the route a distance of twelve kilometres or more had to be traversed to reach
Delphi at an altitude of 550 metres above sea level.481 Despite all this, Parian marble was
applied lavishly in Delphi’s treasuries (which had smaller, manageable blocks) and the Apollo
temple. Marble and transport of the latter were paid for by the exiled Alkmaeonid family.482
In view of these difficulties, it is obvious that transport costs loomed large in the
budget of both ancient sculpture and stone construction. In building accounts, the material
itself is far less conspicuously expensive. Nevertheless, ambitious projects involving marble
were taken on all the time. The Naxians erected a kouros on the island of Delos of which
hardly anything survives now; but the size and weight of its base make one marvel at the
technical prowess of Greek shipping crews and carters.483 Snodgrass suggests that this may
477
Palagia 2000, 350; for the Hephaisteion see Wycherley 1974, 64.
478
Palagia 2000, 348. In the later fifth century, Paros paid twice as much tribute as Naxos (a larger
island) to the Delian League. It has been suggested that this was the price Paros paid for the
wealth it had acquired from the marble trade (Schilardi 2000, 53). Palagia (ibid.) argues that the
tribute was due to Paros’ ties to Persia.
479
As suggested by Palagia 2000, 350. In the Erechtheion frieze, some of the white figures are in
Pentelic, which may suggest that the Parian was left-over stock and that it had run out.
480
Burford 1969, 185; Ashmole 1972, 21-2; Schneider 1994, 173. The location of Kirrha would have
made it impractical to sail all the way around the Peloponnese, although some captains may of
course preferred this.
481
Coulton 1977, 146; Schneider 1992, 163.
482
Hdt. 5.62.3.
483
The base is 5.14 x 3.47 x 0.71m, i.e. 12.5m3 (Coulton 1974, 17) and weighs approximately 34
tons according to Snodgrass 1983, 22; the weight is 34.8 tons if the specific weight of marble is
set at 2.75 tons/m3 (as in Schneider, above n. 471). Kirrha, the port of Delphi, was later equipped
with a special unloading installation (Burford 1969, 188 n. 2; cf. E. Bourguet, FD III.5 no. 19).
122
be a case where a so-called ‘round ship’ was built, a special pontoon which kept an oversized
block partly immersed and so reduced its weight; regular ships from the archaic period are
unlikely to have been large enough for blocks like the base of the Naxian colossus.484 This
monument was exceptional, and a majority of statues required blocks of more manageable
proportions, of which ordinary freighters could carry several.485 Moreover, marble was next to
metal ore among the most common cargoes from the middle of the sixth century until at
least the fourth century, so the expertise of marble transport was well developed.486
As the discussion above has shown, one of the most valuable sources about the
transport and quarrying of marble, as well as quarrying the actual carving, are building
accounts. A considerable number of construction-related inscriptions is preserved from
Epidauros, Delos and Athens.487 These are of particular interest here, because they outline
the costs of the whole process from quarry to final product. However, they also have
limitations. First, most accounts mention blocks for architectural use rather than for
sculpture, so unless the sculpted temple decoration is the subject of the agreement, the
comparison does not really apply. Second, building accounts seldom specify the different
tasks involved in a job, nor particulars like the cost of transporting one cubic metre of marble
one kilometre. Third, many accounts date after the fifth century.
Examples of fourth-century accounts are almost all of the Epidaurian building
agreements. At that time, the sanctuary of Asklepios was given monumental architecture
befitting its importance. Each of the types of stone used there had, as one would expect, its
own price;488 but in the accounts, the same stone may vary in price too, even in the course of
484
Snodgrass 1983, 22; also Wurch-Kozelj 1988, 56 fig. 4, 63. Burford 1969, 185-6 refers to an
average shipping capacity of 70 to 130 tons, which would theoretically allow for transport of the
Naxian base; but Snodgrass rightly objects to this because the block was too big for those ships.
The kouros for this base, now lost, is estimated by Richter (Kouroi 51-3 no. 15) at approximately
7m high (four times life-size); it would have weighed c. 23 tons. Of course this is an estimate,
and the kouros may have consisted of separate pieces; but even so the achievement is
remarkable. Cf. Coulton 1974, 10 n. 52.
485
Snodgrass 1983, 22.
486
Ibid. 18. Other cargoes, e.g. pottery, required fewer runs even if there was more demand because
of the lower weight. Ships could carry a limited number of blocks. At the height of archaic
sculpture and temple-building, demand was great and extended over a large geographical area.
Cf. Schneider 1994, 142-5.
487
Epidauros is discussed in Burford 1969; for Delos see J. Harvey Kent, Hesperia 17 (1948), 243338 (though mostly Hellenistic); and for Athens Stanier 1953; in general also Loomis 1998. Cf. IG
IV2 nos. 913-23.
488
See above p. 110.
123
a few months. For example, the local stone for the core of the colonnade, the stoiba, cost
2,400 drachmai for 73 cubic metres. The stoiba of the cella cost 1,485 drachmai for at most
39 cubic metres.489 According to Burford’s calculations, the price of the second batch of
stone exceeded the first by at least four drachmai per cubic metre.490
Stone prices usually include quarrying (the extraction, possibly basic carving, and the
stone itself), transport, and setting the stone in place. Some records show that the wages
paid to those who transported stone were quite low, although freight seems slightly more
lucrative than transportation of people.491 However, complete specifications, i.e. the cost of
transport per mile for one ton of stone is only preserved in the accounts of Epidauros. The
records state that Pentelic marble for the coffering of the ceiling of the temple was brought
from the harbour of Epidauros to the sanctuary – a journey of just over eleven kilometres – at
1.75 drachmai per ton per kilometre, which came down to 25 drachmai per block and 1,775
in total.492 The Corinthian limestone used in the same temple was delivered at about 0.3 obol
per ton per kilometre, resulting in a total of 1,700 drachmai for 407 tons which had travelled
(by land) further than the Pentelic marble.493
Part of this difference in price may be due to the season: rain was a particular
problem when hauling heavy loads up or lowering them down a mountain, so expense would
have gone up considerably in winter.494 Moreover, depending on the agricultural calendar
there would have been a shortage of oxen in the ploughing season, which slowed down the
work and increased its cost.495 In short, stone transport was seasonal work. As a result,
489
IG IV2 I.1; the second batch is described in lines 9-10 of the same inscription. See also Burford
1969, 193-4.
490
She found that in the first case, the stone cost 34 dr. 1 ob. per m3 while in the second it cost at
least 38 dr. per m3. The description is identical, so the stone is most likely the same in both cases.
However, the calculation is based on a reconstruction of a damaged part of the inscription
(Burford 1969, 193 n. 2).
491
Loomis 1998, 201-2 notes that one of the reasons why it was so cheap to travel for people may
be that there was no specialised transport, and they just went along on boats and carts which
travelled anyway. He lists, only one reliable price/weight relation known: for red ochre to be
brought from Keos to Piraeus, 1 obol per talent was paid (Loomis 1998, 196; IG II2 1128, 11-14).
492
Burford 1969, 190: 25 divided by c. 1.75 is c. 14.3, divided by 11 is c. 1.9 tons per block. The
contractor Megakleides transported 70 of these blocks to a total 140 tons.
493
Precise calculations (in miles) in Burford 1969, 190.
494
Ibid.; also Korres 2000, 40.
495
The ploughing for which oxen were needed would usually have been done in the fall, before the
winter rains started (Xen. Oec. 16.10-17.2); however, the inscriptions do not record when exactly
which activities were executed, only their chronological order. All we know is that the Pentelic
124
carters would have gained experience in handling the stones if a nearby quarry was used
regularly, as on Paros or in the Pentelic mountains: in Epidauros, the Asklepieion was the only
project on this scale, and the skills acquired were of no further use once the sanctuary was
completed, except for an occasional sculpted votive in a more or less finished state.
Most quarries were seldom used for large projects and mainly served small-scale
construction. Consequently, it is to be expected that no standard price for stone or its
transport existed, not even when the same stone from the same quarry was brought along
the same route to the same project. The only thing that stands out from the Epidaurian
building accounts is that sea passage was always cheaper than transport by land; this is
confirmed by other epigraphic evidence.496 For example, building accounts from Eleusis,
dated 333/2 BC, list roof tiles brought in from two places, Lakiadai north-west of Athens,
and Corinth. While for one hundred Corinthian-style tiles from Lakiadai in Attika, forty
drachmai had to be paid, two hundred of the same type of tile were delivered by ship from
Corinth for a total of six drachmai and four obols.497
The marble from Pentelikon which was used in Athens had to travel a distance of
eighteen kilometres and down from a height of 600 m;498 the distance from and elevation of
the Hymettian quarries is similar.499 Beside these famous marble quarries, there are various
limestones in the hills of Attika500 and the Piraean limestone quarries mentioned above,
whose stone was used for the foundation of the old Athena temple on the Akropolis.501 A
dark grey limestone is found near Eleusis (eleusiniakos lithos or melas lithos). It was
sometimes used for dramatic effect, as for example in the background of the frieze of the
marble was delivered earlier in the year than the Corinthian limestone. Possibly, the season
influenced the price.
496
Loomis 1998, 191-202. Burford 1963, 33 suggests that there were no professional transport
companies in ancient Greece and all transport at Epidauros was done by farmers. However, in
Athens it is possible that some people lived off transport. Accounts for transportation of people
(over land) seem quite professional (Loomis 1998, e.g. 194 nos. 7-8, 196 no. 11). Heavy fines on
delays in the delivery of shipments hardly seem like a sign of dilettantism (Burford 1962, 27; id.
1969, 92, 189; also IG II2 1678, 18).
497
Loomis 1998, 198-9. Of course we do not know what personal reasos the shipper may have had
to give a discount to his clients.
498
Stanier 1953, 71; Travlos 1988, 93, 365; Korres 1994, 62-7; Sturgeon 2006, 46.
499
Sturgeon 2006, 44-5 colour pl. 1.
500
For example, the so-called Karas stone from the foothills of Hymettos, described by Wycherley
1974, 57-8.
501
Wycherley 1974, 59; Korres 2000, 10. See above p. 112.
125
Erechtheion.502 The quarries on Mt. Hymettos and Mt. Pentelikon each had several veins of
usable marble. Marble from one vein may look quite different from other marble from the
same area, while both were in use simultaneously. Moreover, both mountain ranges also
produce limestone which was quarried in antiquity.503 Burford contends that no Attic
limestone quarries were exploited commercially, except those near Piraeus.504 It is likely that
the polis controlled all quarries in Attic territory, but this does not mean that quarrying
proper was carried out by the state. Direct contracting between poleis and construction
workers is rarely attested, and no trace of it can be found in such records as the accounts of
Epidauros or Delphi.505
Athens was exceptional in matters of contracting for building projects. The
Parthenon accounts show that for the Periklean building programme, the city hired craftsmen
directly.506 In other cities, contractors were the standard. The organisation of construction in
fifth-century Athens was different from the rest of Greece because the city’s exceptional
economic and cultural activities at the time (and to a lesser extent in the sixth century)
offered sufficient work for a large body of resident craftsmen.507 Not only was this impossible
in more remote, non-urban sanctuaries like Delphi or Epidauros; many other cities could not
sustain such a workforce either. They would send out messengers to broadcast major
building projects when the occasion arose, to invite craftsmen from elsewhere for the
specialised construction work, including sculpture. Once finished, the building experts would
move on to the next job.508
502
Shoe 1949, 347; Ampolo 1982, 251-4. To my knowledge, no private sculpture made in this
material survives. In view of the varying stone types of sepulchral monuments, however, it is very
well possible that they were produced in antiquity.
503
Wycherley 1974, 54, 56, 62-4. A limestone conglomerate from Hymettos, possibly lithos
agryleikos was used, but only in later times, and mostly in foundations because the pebbles in it
prevent a smooth finish.
504
Burford 1965, 29; id. 1969, 173-5.
505
For Epidauros, Burford 1969, 102-18; for Delphi, ibid. 109-10; for the development of building
contracts in general see Burford 1969, 88-102, 109-18; Coulton 1977, 21-2.
506
IG I3 449 (Parthenon); IG I3 474 (Erechtheion). Stanier 1953, Burford 1963, 28; id. 1969, 111-2;
Lauter 1974, 1.23-4; Coulton 1977, 22.
507
Burford 1969, 112.
508
Stanier 1953, 68; Burford 1962, 32; id. 1969, 112. A certain Philon was paid 1.5 obols to
announce work opportunities on the Epidaurian tholos in Athens (Burford 1969, 160-1). Like
elsewhere, contracts were auctioneered to the craftsman or contractor with the best offer.
126
Under these circumstances, contracts were essential. They provided a guarantor, usually a
local citizen, who was liable if craftsmen left without fulfilling their obligations. At Athens
craftsmen were numerous and many lived there permanently, at least in the fifth century:509 it
was easy to find a replacement for anyone who failed to do their work properly or on time, or
who left. Therefore, the need for a contract or a guarantor was less pressing in the city.510
Another reason for this exceptional situation can be found in Athenian building accounts of
the Parthenon and the Erechtheion.511 The Parthenon’s are among the oldest extant building
records, followed by those of the latter. The only potential mention of a building contract of
sorts in fifth-century literary testimonia is in Herodotos’ Histories, when he describes how
the Alkmaeonids served more or less as contractors (or as guarantors?) for the reconstruction
of the temple of Apollo at Delphi in the mid-sixth century.512 The story of their decision to
have the front of the temple made in Parian marble out of their own funds suggests much
personal involvement: the important role of aristocrats in archaic building projects is
confirmed by other sources as well.513 How much and specifically which work the noble
Alkmaeonids did, however, is dubious. It is hard to imagine them driving ox-carts hauling
marble from Kirrha to Delphi.
The nature of a project like the temple at Delphi, with such high-born contractors or
financers, contrasts with the more businesslike approach in the accounts of the Asklepieion
at Epidauros, or of the Erechtheion. In the latter, a contract naming a guarantor is drawn up
for only one particular job, the ceiling coffers: the rest of the work is paid in daily wages or
per job, but always directly to the craftsmen.514 In the accounts of the Asklepieion at
Epidauros, this has changed to contracts and guarantors for most of the work. The Athenians
from the late fifth century hired relatively few individuals for large jobs, but in the fourth
century, the economic climate had become less prosperous. To cut the risk for both the
sanctuary and the guarantors, many small agreements were made with many craftsmen,
rather than only a few for bulk jobs with contractors.515 This means that more information is
available about construction in the late fifth and the fourth centuries. Moreover, the many
509
This subject is discussed below, ch. III.4.
510
Burford 1969, 112.
511
Ibid. 111.
512
Hdt. 2.180; 5.62.3.
513
Coulton 1977, 22.
514
Randall 1953; Burford 1969, 111.
515
Randall 1953, 210; Burford 1969, 112-3; Coulton 1977, 21-3.
127
agreements for small jobs indicate increasing caution in contracting, as well as attempts to
spread the financial risk. Thus, the organisation of temple-building appears to become
increasingly professional from the sixth to the fourth centuries.516
How does all this translate to private sculpture in Athens? There are no contracts or
accounts regarding the transport of stone for private gravestones or votives. Only when a
polis dedicated statues or other sculpted monuments, accounts may sometimes have been
used for individual sculptures. Widely spread state ownership of quarries allowed sanctuaries
or the demos to take what stone they needed for free, while private commissioners are more
likely to have paid for the stone. They almost certainly had to cover the entire cost of
extraction and transport, although the relevant records are lost. A large construction project
required much of a polis’ resources for transport, but stone for a single votive of a
reasonable size could be moved in a sturdy cart even by the patron personally, if necessary. If
the patron preferred island marble, getting it to Athens was potentially more complicated.
But as will be discussed shortly, in the fifth century all kinds of materials were transported
individually for a small fee paid to a skipper or carter.517
Attic patrons who preferred their local marble had every opportunity to get material
for sculpture if they wanted. Whether they actually did so is a different story. On the slipway
from the Pentelic mountains, built to ensure the marble supply for Athens’ public building
projects, private transports are not likely. For smaller sculptures, left-over marble from
construction or marble ordered along with the building material would suffice, and many
sculptors may have had some marble in stock.518 The use of left-over stone from a sacred
building for a private votive or gravestone would have posed few problems; it remained
within a religious sphere.519
If the stone available in Athens was insufficient, it could be ordered in the desired
size and shape from a quarry and brought down along with construction blocks. Apart from
the price tag, there were no problems in this. By contrast, a patron manoeuvring his own cart
and team of horses through the traffic on the slipway may have been allowed. But to do so
was rather dangerous, and the traffic of public carriers would have deterred many, especially
516
The many detailed job descriptions also suggest growing craft specialisation; more on this subject
below, ch. III.
517
Loomis 1998, 191-202.
518
This happened elsewhere too, e.g. at Delphi: Abraldes 1998, 135-6.
519
For attitudes toward stone which was earmarked for sacred purposes, see Burford 1972, 120-3,
237 n. 317; Lolos 2002, 205. Also above n. 477.
128
in view of the difficulties of two carts passing each other on the road in opposite directions.
The advent of ‘professional’ quarrying for building purposes and the development of the
equivalent infrastructure is likely to have curtailed individual transport by sculptors or
patrons. By the late fifth century, a well-run transportation system appears to have been in
place at most of the larger quarries and certainly in the Pentelic mountains. Combined with
the experienced professional carters who worked the lithagogia road, it would thus have
been unnecessary for the Athenians to fetch their own stone.
5
C ONCLUSION :
SCULPTURE AND THE MARBLE TRADE
From the beginning of the sixth century, supply routes of stone to Athens were gradually
improved. Early on, the possibilities of quarrying were limited due to the small scale of
quarries and a lack of technique and infrastructure. It remains uncertain whether demand for
marble was low at this time as a result of these limitations, or little effort was made to
overcome them because there was no real demand. However, after the middle of the sixth
century the market expanded dramatically thanks to developments in architecture, creating
new opportunities for the production of private sculpture. Slipways, loading ramps and port
installations were built during the fifth century, facilitating large-scale exploitation of
quarries and trade in stone. In some quarries, such as those on Mt. Pentelikon, transport
became quite sophisticated, and surplus from construction in Athens could be sold for
private commissions. These developments illustrate the growth of the market for highquality marble and a demand which was strong enough to overcome any limitations in
technology. There is no evidence that marble quarries in ancient Greece were left unexploited
because of technical problems.
The earliest preserved text sources on ownership of quarries date to the end of the
fifth or from the fourth century, and these show that most Athenian quarries were the
property of cities or sanctuaries. Their day-to-day management was left to officials of the
deme in which the quarry was situated, or leased out by the deme. No sources survive on
what was customary in the sixth century but it is possible that in archaic times, quarries
belonged to the owners of the land on which they lay. If this was the case, the marble may
have been free of charge if the landowner allowed it, and perhaps even have played a part in
diplomatic gift exchange. By the fourth century, there are no signs of such private use
129
anymore. Publicly owned quarries like those near Piraeus or Eleusis sold stone for money,
which was admittedly used to finance festivals and other religious duties.
In cases like the fifth-century building programme on the Athenian Akropolis, polis
ownership of quarries meant a reduction of the cost of the project, although prices of the
marble proper seem to have been relatively low anyway. It was transport that made stone
expensive: ancient literary texts and inscriptions rarely mention its intrinsic value.520 The
figures in building accounts often include extraction, transport and delivery as well as the
cost of the stone in a lump sum, and the share of each expense item in the total price can
only be guessed at. However, in the fifth century stone must have become a commodity
which required payment, if religious festivals could be financed from quarry revenue.
Growing efficiency in the supply of Pentelic marble partly explains why so much
Athenian sculpture from the later half of the fifth century was made in this material:
availability was a great incentive. Pentelic was already used from the middle of the sixth
century for bases of votives and to a lesser degree of gravestones (tables 3c-d). A relatively
well-organised system of quarrying and transportation of marble from Pentelikon must have
been in place by the final quarter of the sixth century at the latest, because more bases from
the late sixth and early fifth century are in Pentelic marble than in any other type.
Since many subtypes of Pentelic proved outstanding for sculpture in the fifth century,
lack of quality cannot have been a reason why late-archaic sculptors and patrons in Athens
preferred island marble. But if Pentelic marble was and is more than adequate for inscriptions
as well as for high-quality carving, and the infrastructure to the city was in order, why did
island marble stay in favour until the end of the archaic period? One answer to this may be
that shipping made island marble cheaper than marble transported by land in the late archaic
period. Stone which came by sea only had to be brought to Athens from Piraeus: a more or
less flat stretch of about ten kilometres, compared to 18 kilometres downhill. That being
said, the difference in transport cost of local and island marble cannot have been very great.
A potential reason for the disappearance of island marble after the archaic period
could theoretically lie in the changing relations between Athens and the islands. In the story
of Lygdamis, the latter was helped by Peisistratos to become the tyrant of Naxos. The close
ties between the two could have affected the import of Naxian marble to Athens in the
second half of the sixth century. However, most sculpture in Naxian marble which can be
520
Pliny does mention white marble of the island of Paros called Lychnites (HN 36.4) and refers to
Varro’s explanation of the name (the stone was quarried at night by lamp light).
130
found in Athens dates to the beginning of the sixth century, well before Lygdamis came into
power. For bases, Naxian marble occurs in the record only once, for a votive base (table 3c).
That being said, votives in island survive in similar numbers to those in Attic marble in the
sixth century (table 3a). Only in the third and final quarters of the sixth century, votives in
island marble gain considerably on attic marble – but whether this marble is Naxian or from
other islands cannot be determined. Even if it were Naxian, however, the deposition of
Lygdamis around 524 BC and of the Peisistratids shortly after makes it unlikely that their
influence is behind this increase. So, there is no evidence that the relationship between the
tyrants contributed anything to the Athenian-Naxian marble trade.
Lygdamis’ treatment of the exiles’ confiscated land suggests that he was partial to
economic gain, from these estates, the sculptures or otherwise, but not that he stimulated
the Naxian sculpture trade. The fact that he allowed the Naxian nobility to dedicate the
votives once they had bought them back shows that he had lost interest in their status at that
point, perhaps because the impoverished elite was no longer a threat. He apparently
considered their dedications harmless by then, if not earlier, too. In Athens, although many
of Peisistratos’ opponents were apparently exiled, there is no evidence that the tyrant
stopped anyone from offering even quite lavish sculptures, nor from setting up impressive
grave monuments.521
The unfinished votives which Lygdamis had confiscated were, according to Aristotle,
placed in workshops, implying that the sculptors in question had set up shop at convenient
locations. This was most likely near the quarry, where the statue was to be roughed out
before transport. Once the mass was reduced as much as possible, it was brought to a port
for further shipping, or set up at a local sanctuary or cemetery. Considering the travelling
habits of archaic sculptors and the early development of Greek sculpture close to the sources
of marble, it is probable that early-archaic sculptors worked intensively with the quarrymen.
As will be discussed in the next chapter, travelling sculptors from the islands did not always
stick with their original marble types. Especially later in the sixth century, as they went to
work on the mainland or in the great pan-Hellenic sanctuaries, their signatures occur on
statues in marble from various origins.
In the second quarter of the sixth century, the use of marble shifted from mainly
insular to about half insular, half Attic (chart 3f). This development reflects the growing
521
Cf. for dedicants’ names below, ch. IV.4.
131
versatility of sculptors as well as the beginnings of an Athenian sculpture world whose
sculptors resided locally. Their preference for working with a stone they knew well would
never disappear, but became less pressing as the market grew for both private sculpture and
for carving in large architectural projects, which involved working with whatever stone had
been chosen for the building.522 Moreover, sculptors from Athens were trained in Attic
marble in the course of the sixth century, while initially they may have gone to the islands to
learn. Once this development started, the rise of Pentelic marble was merely a matter of time.
By the second half of the fifth century, the shift was complete. Sculptors no longer
needed to visit quarries to fetch stone: during the dry season marble was brought to the city
frequently as long as construction went on. What was left over from building projects could
be bought, or one could order blocks to be fetched down with the building stone. The
practice of pre-cutting statues in all likelihood became rarer in Athens, at the latest when
quarrymen and carriers of Pentelic and Hymettian marble became used to delivering building
blocks as a standard.523 Master sculptors may only have gone to the quarries if there was a
special order requiring marble of exceptional quality or size, or simply if they wanted to keep
an eye on things. It is interesting to realise that even if a block was not up to the
expectations of the sculptor, transporters could probably easily sell it elsewhere for smaller
commissions: in Athens, enough sculpture was going on to handle labour and supply loosely.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from the direct dealings of the Athenian state with
contractors. Other poleis were eager to avoid liability, because there, it was not so easy to
replace materials or a workforce. In Athens, sculptors, suppliers and carters – the artists and
support personnel of this sculpture world – could afford to stay and make a living from
making gravestones, votives and occasional commissions of architectural work. The marble
for Athens was provided on a regular basis to the city from the Pentelic mountains, and by
then only rarely from elsewhere.
Even though this explains the popularity of Pentelic in the later fifth century, it
remains puzzling why such highly praised island marble as Parian, which continued to be
exported to places like Delphi and Delos, was now practically absent from Athenian private
sculpture. Only a handful of votives in Parian marble from the second half of the fifth century
can be found. An explanation seems to offer itself in the history of Paros in the early fifth
522
See also below, n. 582.
523
For standardised architectural elements such as column drums or capitals, the practice was
continued. See also Korres 1994, passim.
132
century. Shortly after the battle of Marathon, Miltiades set out on an ill-fated attempt to
invade Paros, which according to Herodotos was thwarted by the Parians’ ingenuity at
building defences.524 The reason was supposed to be the help which a Parian trireme had
offered to the Persians at Marathon; and true or not, the Parians certainly aided the Persians
later on, during the final years of the Persian War.525
Practically speaking, it is likely that the marble trade was hardly affected by such
obstacles. Even the siege of the main port of Paros (presumably modern Paroíkia) would not
have interrupted the export of Lychnites which was shipped, after all, from Naoussa. In any
case, Greek city-states rarely let diplomatic squabbles interfere with economic interests,526
except perhaps where essential supplies of war were concerned: grain, metal or shipbuilding
materials. The Athenian campaign against Paros need not have been an impediment for the
export of marble. If anything, after the Persian wars ended and the island became conscripted
to the Delian League, they needed as much income as they could get for their high tribute
fees.527 Nevertheless, the Athenians never again became as partial to Parian marble as they
had been in the sixth century. Whether patriotism or convenience were more influential in
this must remain undecided.
A noteworthy aspect of the evidence for marble types is the material of the bases, in
particular those for bronze sculptures. As was discussed in the previous chapter, the
supposition that bronze took over from marble for private sculpture in the course of the sixth
century is too simple. Though bases for bronze votives start slightly later than those for
marble dedications, they generally follow a very similar trend (table 1b, chart 1b). Of the 75
votive bases from the last quarter of the sixth century, 47 are in Pentelic marble. In the first
quarter of the fifth century, 84 out of 88 are in this material. Marble from Pentelikon was thus
readily used for bases, even at times when sculpture was mostly in insular marble. Perhaps
this is an indication that sculptors and letter-cutters were not the same people, and the latter
may have been local and used to working with pentelic marble, but this will be explored in
the next chapter. From an economic point of view, it looks like patrons allowed the material
for bases to be cheaper than that of the statues.
524
Hdt. 6.132-135.
525
E.g. Hdt. 8.67.
526
Illustrated by e.g. imports of Athenian pottery in Corinth during the Peloponnesian War:
MacDonald 1982.
527
Cf. above n. 478.
133
Sixth-century patrons preferred Parian marble for sculpture in Athens, and so did the
sculptors who worked there. A main reason for this is supposedly the luminous quality of the
stone. And surely, Parian marble is beautiful; aesthetic appreciation must have played its
part. Pentelic marble, on the other hand, was used for bases throughout the sixth century:
therefore patrons and sculptors were aware that it was available and usable. Its quality offers
no reason why sculptors would not have switched to Pentelic for their sculpture earlier.
Pentelic would have been cheaper in transport, which they knew because they used it for
bases. So, although the quality of Pentelic was satisfactory and it was less expensive, patrons
still preferred marble from further away for sculpture, while using the local marble only for
bases and pedestals. Had they wanted to drive display of expensive marble to the top, they
could have chosen the precious island marble for the bases, too, but this was apparently not
deemed necessary.
Technical aspects may well have influenced these choices as well. Pentelic marble is
more suitable for carving inscriptions than Parian and especially Naxian, because of the
shape of the crystals. The many documents which were carved in Pentelic in fifth-century
Athens shows that letter-cutters were by that time at the latest familiar with this advantage
of the local marble. Second, the improved infrastructure built for the mid-fifth century
construction programme at Athens was a great impetus to the quarries in the
neighbourhood. A third reason may lie in the composition of the letter-cutters and sculptors
working in Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries. If the sculptors were mostly from the
island, but those who carved and inscribed the bases were local, bases could almost be seen
as a training ground on which the stoneworkers in Athens learned to carve their local marble.
The investigation which this suggestion calls for will follow in the next chapter.
The numbers of those who worked in sculpture in Athens (or in related fields) must
have increased over the sixth and fifth centuries. The evidence shows that changes in the
materials of their sculpture develops parallel to wider patterns of demand and supply. From
the middle of the sixth century onward, both the demand for stone and the expectations
regarding its quality grew. As a result, the extraction, transportation and delivery of marble
became a smoothly running operation, in which specialist tasks were performed by
experienced craftsmen. This would not have occurred without the rise of architecture in
marble. But as will be argued below, it is also unlikely that it would have occurred, at least in
Athens, without the craze for marble votives or grave monuments. Between these two
incentives for the marble trade, practices of quarrying and transport became increasingly
specialised and professional.
134
III The sculptor’s trade
1
P ROFESSIONAL
STATUS AND SPECIALIS ATION IN SCULPTURE
The core of the sculpture world of Athens consisted of sculptors and their associates, and all
those who physically worked to create statues, reliefs and bases to a finished state. Of this
art world, the material and literary evidence which is preserved can be broached from two
angles. On the one hand, there are what may be called timeless art-sociological perspectives,
such as Becker’s. Their advantage is precisely that they were not devised for a specific period
but for a social phenomenon, and that they may have been common to various periods. On
the other hand there are diachronic studies, which can be closer in time (or method of study)
to the centuries under consideration here.
An example of a historical approach in social studies concerns professionalisation as
part of civilisation and the emergence of states;528 and specific studies on professionalisation
in crafts which are derived from this theory, for example, painting in the city-states of Italy in
the Renaissance.529 This view defines four progressive phases in the professionalism of
Renaissance painters. First, specialist education from master to apprentice is organised in
workshops; then, professional organisations or guilds are formed; third, the skills inherent to
the trade are discussed in writing and sometimes theorised on; and last, there is a realisation
of the history of the trade among its practitioners, which is documented.530 While undeniably,
city-states in Renaissance Italy differ from ancient Athens, the professionalism in crafts and
these four stages of development are useful concepts for an analysis of the Athenian
sculpture world.531 The evidence presented here will show that professionalisation of the craft
of sculpture can be traced in archaic and classical Athens.
528
Elias 1939; Kempers 1994.
529
E.g. M. Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy: A Primer in the Social
History of Pictorial Style, Oxford 1972; Kempers 1994.
530
Kempers 1994, 6-7.
531
Weber 1958 as discussed in A. Molho, K. Raaflaub, J. Emlen eds., City States in Classical Antiquity
and Medieval Italy. Athens and Rome, Florence and Venice (Symposium, Providence) 1991, 19-30;
also Finley 1977. For an alternative approach cf. Griffeth and Thomas 1981.
135
The image of ancient sculptors ranges from individualists comparable to artists of modern
times, such as Pheidias, to anonymous craftsmen of lowly status with no professional
awareness. As a tool of study, this dichotomy – Art v. craft – is flawed, since there is no
evidence for this notion in ancient thinking about sculpture or about art in general: the
Athenian art world of the sixth and fifth centuries shows no signs of such a debate. Most
likely the inhabitants of Athens were aware of differences in workmanship (and in prices)
among the sculptors in their city, and their observations were unbiased by any distinction of
Art or craft. Perhaps they spotted stylistic variations and developments in sculpture over
time; it is likely that they noticed varying quality and changing iconography. Another aspect
of this awareness is the scale and organisation of manufacture in the sixth and fifth
centuries. It is to be expected that statues and stelai on burial grounds and in sanctuaries
influenced Athenian perceptions of sculpture. Moreover, publicly visible developments in the
production process, such as the rapid expansion of the supply of Pentelic marble in the fifth
century BC, must have been very conspicuous, since they involved the construction of
specialised infrastructure.
Variations in technical quality of, and innovative trends in the sculpture of a given
period, together with the operational details of its production, might be described as its
practice range. An essential part of the practice range of Athens’ sculpture is
specialisation,532 two types of which are distinguished in literature. Horizontal specialisation
is determined by the variety of goods at the disposal of a particular society: each type of
goods is procured by a specialist craft or trade. Vertical specialisation on the other hand
regards the number of different skills or trades necessary to create a single product. Ancient
economies offered a wide diversity of goods and so were relatively specialised horizontally,
yet scholars have considered them poorly developed in terms of vertical specialisation.533
However, while the number of ancient trades at the same level of horizontal specialisation is
undeniably extensive, sculpture does not seem to lack vertical specialisation.534 Even a
532
Burford 1969, 144-5, 199 (in architecture); id. 1972, 96-101; Finley 1965, 38-9; id. 1973, 135;
Harris 2002, 70-1 and passim. Cf. also above, ch. II.3.
533
Cf. previous note. An exception is construction for public or sacred purposes, in which the
number and diversity of skills cooperating is undeniably great. See Burford 1969, 9; id. 1972,
101-7; Harris 2002, 71.
534
Nor for some other industries, e.g. evidence of specialisation in the manufacture of textile in
ancient Pompeii (Schneider 1992, 121). It is not unthinkable that the differentiation of labour (in
the definition of this research; cf. below) was quite common in other crafts as well, but is now
difficult to establish.
136
summary glance at the types of expertise necessary to make a statue and erect it on a
pedestal shows that it cannot be confined to a craft or two. For example, in the final stages of
production the statue needed to be painted, the base inscribed and dowels forged and
inserted to set up the monument.
The status of the sculpture trade in Athens during the sixth and fifth centuries was
determined both by comparison with other crafts and by the standards which society set.
Besides archaeological evidence, the position and role of sculpture appears in descriptions of
the trade and designations used for it in contemporary or near-contemporary sources. Part of
the meaning of craft was indicated by the word techne, which in later scholarship acquired a
subtext of Art, in the modern, capitalised sense of the word.535 Although a rudimentary
semantic overlap of Art and techne exists, its specific application to the production of Art
objects is problematic. Techne indicated know-how to do or to produce something; in craft
this involved the knowledge to create an object according to a pre-existent idea, with as little
risk as possible of its falling short of the maker’s expectations.536 However, this is only part
of the meaning of techne. Thinking about craft or sculpture in particular focussed on the fact
that it was manual labour, which was one of the main reasons for negative connotations.
Those who did work of this kind were called banausoi, and their trades the banausikai
technai. Nonetheless, in the philological tradition techne has often been used for sculpture
which nowadays is considered Art.
In antiquity, however, banausoi were lowly makers of things: not only sculptors, but
also cobblers or fullers. The, in modern eyes, rather vague boundaries of the meaning of
techne may well be the result of a scholarly tradition in which the sculpture of Athens was
split into Pheidias and Alkamenes on the one hand and anonymous sculptors (often with the
implication of low quality) on the other.537 It has long been recognised, though, that this view
535
For a historical overview of scholarship on techne in Schneider 1989, 1-9; id. 1992, 17-30;
Janaway 1995, 37; Van den Hoven 1996, 82 n. 30; Löbl 1997, 213-223 (bibl.) and passim. Cf.
Philipp 1968, 61, for the view that techhne holds no artistic meaning, only skill, even if masterful.
536
Pollitt 1974, 32-3; Schneider 1989, 14; Janaway 1995, 38-9; Van Hoven 1996, 84; Löbl 1997,
28-30.
537
This rift can be traced in titles on Greek sculpture: e.g. Pheidias and Polykleitos have many
monographs named after them (e.g. Polykleitos: Vermeule 1969; Moon 1995. Pheidias: Hekler
1924; Langlotz 1947). The others are discussed in Lechat 1906 (before Pheidias); Schlörb 1964
(after Pheidias) and Frel SAA. Recently, this trend has changed: for example, Nick 2002, whose
title features the Athena Parthenos, not her maker; or Vlassopoulou 2005 or Despinis 2008, who
both discuss badly battered sculpture fragments within the tradition of so-called Kopienkritik, but
do so with nuance and an open mind as to the Meisterfrage.
137
lacks nuance. The first important reason for its inadequacy lies precisely in the semantic
range of techne as a concept, both as it developed over time and at any given moment during
the sixth and fifth centuries BC.
Although early occurrences of techne usually display a strong connection to craft, its
meaning quickly starts to expand and diversify.538 The Odyssey portrays Odysseus himself as
an exceptional craftsman, as illustrated by his construction of the marriage bed and his
knowledge of navigation at sea (also a techne). Moreover, the sea-god Proteus’ ability to
change shape is described as a devious techne.539 This twofold meaning continued to exist
during the archaic period, for example in the work of Hesiod or Solon.540 Techne could apply
to any honed skill, whether in creating an object, performing a procedure, or being cunning
and crafty.541 At this time, little social distinction adhered to techne yet.542 It was simply a
recognition of creative or skill-related knowledge in a wide range of activities and the
resulting objects: there is nothing shameful in Odysseus’ technical prowess.
A constant element in the definition of techne is teachability. Technical performance
depends on certain rules, and if these are learned and applied properly excellence can be
achieved. They must be mastered before a craftsman can be considered a technites or
expert.543 Thus, techne, in the sense of knowledge of a craft and its rules, is emphatically
learnable.544 An influential group to use the educational aspect of techne – as the case was,
538
In particular, it originally related to tekton in the craft of building with wood: Schneider 1989, 67; Roochnik 1996, 21-4; Löbl 1997, 28, 31, 211.
539
Od. 23.180-204; 5.270 (navigator); 4.455 (Proteus). Cf. Burford 1972, 198-9; Löbl 1997, 25-7
notes that the number of specific uses of techne grows with the number of specialist crafts.
Initially it was for any kind of activity or process (id. 211). Compare also Schneider 1989, 11-31,
esp. 16, 25; Roochnik 1996, 23.
540
Cf. Löbl 1997, 51-4, 62.
541
Ibid.; also Schneider 1989, 14-6, 154, 168-70.
542
Himmelmann 1998, 50, 55.
543
These rules, i.e. the abstract part of techne, are the episteme of a particular field of expertise.
Differences and similarities between techne and episteme are not pursued here, since this study is
concerned with the everyday practicalities and possible social implications of the terminology.
544
For example, Pl. Prt. 319b-c, Phlb. 55e-56a; Arist. Metaph. II.1, 981b7-10: ‘…oàlwj te shmei¤on
tou¤ ei¦do¢toj kai£ mh£ ei¦do¢toj to£ du¢nasqai dida¢skein e¦sti¢n kai£ dia£ tou¤to th£n te¢xnhn th¤j e¦mpeiri¢aj
h¥gou¢meqa ma¤llon e¦pisth¢mhn eiånai: du¢nantai ga¢r, oi¥ de£ ou¦ du¢nantai dida¢skein’: ‘…in general the
sign of knowledge or ignorance is the ability to teach, and for that reason we hold that art rather
than experience is scientific knowledge; for the artists can teach, but the others cannot’ (transl.
Tredennick, in Coooper and Hutchinson 1997). Another word for expert is demiourgos, which
features prominently in Plato’s Republic. Cf. also Schneider 1989, 24-5, 149 (particularly in
medicine), 152-6, 159.
138
for rhetoric – were the sophists.545 Perhaps as a result of their polemic with Plato, techne
acquired an ambiguous value later in history.546 Plato’s objections against the sophists and
their teachings are well outside the scope of this study, but his classification of knowledge
and views of handicraft have strongly coloured classical scholarship.547
In her study of work in ancient and medieval thought, B. van den Hoven argues that
apart from the generally negative views of Plato and Aristotle on handicrafts, there were
alternative movements in antiquity which have been neglected because of the historical
standing of the fourth-century philosophers. She indicates that even within the works of Plato
and Aristotle, distinctions appear in the appreciation of the infamous productive technai.548
For example, in so far as technai use abstract thinking in design or execution, they were
considered more valuable and worthier occupations than when this was not the case.549
Carpenters who used precise measurements applied a basic form of mathematics which lifted
them above those whose activities were purely mechanical and did not require thought;
architecture was even better, for it was mathematically complex.550
On the other hand, painters are at one point famously dismissed by Plato for creating
an image of reality twice removed from the original.551 The sculpture trade, on the other
545
Pollitt 1974, 34; Roochnik 1996, 63-82.
546
Roochnik 1996, 2-6. Cf. also Philipp 1968; Schneider 1989, 97-103 and Löbl 1997, 169-72 for
the use of techne in pre-Socratic texts; the sophists are listed in the latter, 172-9.
547
E.g. Finley 1965, as noted by Van den Hoven 1996, 90, 111.
548
Or poietikai technai. Van den Hoven 1996, 107-11; also Balme 1984, 147-8; Schneider 1989, 7.
Van den Hoven notes that Plato and Aristotle did not agree on this. The former is mainly
concerned with a metaphoric use of crafts, working towards ethical issues by analogy (e.g. in Plt.
281d-e), although elsewhere the position of crafts in the hierarchy of knowledge is addressed
(e.g. Rep. 370b-371e). Aristotle embeds the technai in a general framework of knowledge and
apparently deems them worthy of study in their own right (e.g. Arist. Metaph. II.1 993b, 21). Cf
Schneider 1989 154-5, 162; Van den Hoven 1996, 101-5; Roochnik 1996, 89.
549
In other words, applied episteme. Pl. Plt. 284d-285b, Phlb. 56b (regarding architecture); Arist.
Metaph. 981a 1-24. Also Schneider 1989, 178-8; Van den Hoven 1996, 89.
550
See previous note. Physical and especially mindless labour prevented the improvement of the soul
(Arist. Pol. 1337b 7-14). Van den Hoven 1996, 91-2 describes a threefold differentiation in the
status of technai. For the development of this categorisation over time see 109-11. On a related
note, in Plato’s Republic it is adamantly stated that craftsmen cannot have original ideas of their
own (596b); but the different levels of status of technai suggest at the very least that
philosophers were aware that abstract thinking was part of creating sculpture. It would not have
escaped them, for example, that the design of a statue and its emergence from an unhelpful
block would require at least as much abstract thought as the measurements necessary to make a
cabinet: pure routine (empeiria) or mindless habit cannot suffice.
551
Pl. Rep. 596a-597e.
139
hand, is seldom discussed by Plato, and one can only speculate how he would have classified
it.552 An exception is the dialogue between Socrates and Hippias on the quality of fineness, in
the sense of the beautiful.553 Here, Plato illustrates a point by means of the chryselephantine
Athena by Pheidias.554 The statue is made of various precious materials, each most suited to
the part of the figure where it is applied, like an excellent craftsman such as Pheidias would
do. The propriety of the use of materials makes the statue beautiful; had they been used
differently, its beauty would have been less. However, although a sculptor and his work are
discussed here more thoroughly than is usual in Plato’s work, the object of the discussion is
not the nature of sculpture as a craft. It is merely used as an example.
Sculpture as a subject in itself only appears in the theory about the subdivision of
technai.555 Of particular relevance is the notion that sculpture is an imitative art – a case of
mimesis – although sculptors usually do not follow nature exactly. If they did so, for example,
in a statue larger than life-size, Plato argues, the upper part would seem too small for the
body.556 So, the true proportions of a human figure may be distorted in order to
accommodate the imperfections of human visual perception. Although modifications of
nature’s example are in philosophical terms reprehensible, the protagonists in the Sophist
quite agree that it makes the statue beautiful in appearance, while a mathematically correct
rendering would not be pleasing visually.557
552
Although painters and sculptors are alike in their distance from original ideas, Plato’s objections
against crafts are not targeted specifically at sculpture. Plato’s categories of craft are based on
the functionality of the items, placing painting in the group which provides pleasure (‘playthings’,
in Plt. 288c; cf. Schneider 1989, 172). One might assume that sculpture, too, falls into this
category; but instead, statues and sculpture are used as examples, and are nowhere linked to the
disparagement that is painting’s lot. Thus, the painting of a statue (not even the carving proper)
illustrates in the Republic (420c-d) how the specific characteristics of each part make the whole
image beautiful – like in the ideal state. In the Ion (533b), sculpture is mentioned to demonstrate
the capacity of an expert in a field to judge all creation in that field. If Plato strikes a different
tone regarding sculpture and painting, it perhaps has its roots in the (partly) religious nature of
sculpture, especially cult statues. Plato never mentions any such factor, but it is curious that
sculpture does not appear as a topic in its own right, while other crafts – painting, music – do.
553
Pl. Hp. Ma. 289d-290e.
554
Ibid. 290a-b; cf. Pl. Rep. 420c-d (above n. 552).
555
Cf. Janaway 1995, 170-4; Van den Hoven 1996, 101-2, 107-8.
556
Pl. Soph. 235d-236b. Perhaps it can be inferred that Plato would consider a sculptor who did not
apply this rule as lacking in techne.
557
Ibid. 236b-c classifies sculpture of more than life-size as phantastike techne or semblancemaking, since the proportions have to be adapted and are not true to the original, i.e. not a
likeness. Cf. Janaway 1995, 170-3.
140
From a sculptural perspective, this is the crux of Plato’s views on the visual arts of his time.
He creates the problem that objects should be a reflection of knowledge in order for the
techne to be acceptable. However, he also acknowledges the following: there are sculptors
who are experts in their trade; they apply rules which defy philosophical, or more precisely,
mathematical knowledge; yet if they would not do so, they would be bad craftsmen. Plato
shows both appreciation of good sculpture and rather a lot of insight in the process of
creating it.558 Not for the first time, this raises the question whether Plato’s opinion of
sculpture, or even art in general, was as negative as it came down in history.
It is likely that the fourth-century objections against productive technai were often
directed at the consequences of doing physical or trade-based work:559 the body was
strained and degraded, and since a lot of time was taken up by the job, little freedom
remained either in a practical or spiritual sense. The worst part, however, was that one had to
be paid by others.560 To the philosophical Athenian elite of the fifth century, being a sculptor
was an occupation of little status. It was a hard and dusty job, linked more to the senses than
to abstract thought and as a result partly irrational. Moreover, it involved earning money and
so made the craftsman dependent on others instead of being ‘his own man’, a situation
which was to be avoided.561 Despite this, the knowledge to make something from a
preconceived idea, especially when using measurements, was recognised to some extent by
Plato and certainly by Aristotle as a form of abstract thinking.562 Thus, the philosophical
evidence does not support an unequivocal ranking of sculptors among the lowliest banausoi.
Moreover, the reasons why crafts were held in low esteem are sometimes contradictory and
often involve non-philosophical, but professional or social arguments. With regard to the
latter, the sculptors’ work probably had as humble a status as other handicrafts; but in
558
For example: Pl. Men. 91d.
559
Raaflaub 1983, 531; Balme 1984, 140-1, 146; Van den Hoven 1996, 92.
560
Van den Hoven 1996, 92-3; also Schneider 1989, 163. Himmelmann 1998, 55 notes that it was
not the manual work per se, but the social context which created a negative image: because
philosophers by definition associated the sale of goods with greed, trade and tradesmen were
viewed as morally objectionable.
561
Van den Hoven 1996, 92-3; n. 74, 76 lists ancient authors who wrote to that effect. See also
Balme 1984, 141.
562
Pl. Rep. 529e describes how sculptors or other craftsmen may carefully draw plans and through
them reach very satisfactory results. However, he goes on to conclude that nobody would study
aspects of geometry from the artist’s plans. See also Schneider 1989, 178-9, 183; and Van den
Hoven 1996, 85, 89.
141
philosophical terms there was the admittedly subtle differentiation in which theoretically or
mathematically inclined trades came out higher than others.563
Obviously these are views of an elite, and the ramifications in other parts of Athenian
society are difficult to grasp; moreover, the main philosophical sources are from the fourth
century BC rather than the fifth, let alone the sixth. It has been argued that in the fifth
century, the debate about the limitations and qualities of techne became widely known in
Athens, in view of the word’s occurrence in contemporary tragedy and changing views on the
relation between man and nature.564 Specifications of types of techne became more and more
detailed over time: while initially carpentry, shipping and smithing were the main fields of
application within the range of craft-related meanings, an extensive list of different techne
specialisations can be drawn up from fifth-century texts.565 In these cases, adjectives are
used to indicate the particular craft intended, which would seem to reflect advancing
professional differentiation on a linguistic level.566
That specialisation was an issue in the classical period is clear from contemporary
authors as well. Plato in his ideal state considers it necessary in order to achieve a desirable
level of workmanship. In the case of warfare, for example, specialisation is a matter of life
and death.567 He even has Socrates suggest that it is the governing principle of
‘urbanisation’.568 Although his concept differs from the modern sociological term, it is
interesting that Plato refers to it. This division of labour, which allows a city to function, is
linked to categorisation of types of techne; and those technai which aim only to please and
are therefore of a lesser order, can still be useful in, for example, education. Again, the point
is made that even though some technai are not ‘true’ in the philosophical sense, they have
their use and their value in a society.569 It must be significant that by the fourth century BC,
563
As a result, techne is closer to episteme (knowledge) than to empeiria (experience). Cf. n. 562.
564
At the very least, tragedies show that the discussion about techne in relation to nature (phusis)
and the level of man’s control over nature was conducted among Athenian audiences, as pointed
out by Pollitt 1974, 34; cf. also Van den Hoven 1996, 83-8 for an in-depth discussion of phusis
and techne. Also Roochnik 1996, 33-43, 57-63; Löbl 1997, 73-125.
565
Schneider 1989, 93-4; Roochnik 1996, 28, 34, Löbl 1997, 181. None of this equals the
philosophical subdivision by Plato, as represented by Janaway 1995, 172 fig. 2.
566
Schneider 1989, 17-8 Roochnik 1996, 19; Löbl 1997, 181; Harris 2002, 88-99. Cf. also the next
section in this chapter.
567
Pl. Rep. 370b; 434a-443c.
568
Ibid. 369a.
569
As in Pl. Rep. 400e-401a, regarding music, painting and techne in general.
142
labour specialisation in craft is outlined in philosophy, whether positively or not. Added to
the growing awareness which is suggested in fifth-century sources such as drama, the
evidence not only sheds light on developments in the Athenian art world of the fifth century,
but also indicates contemporary recognition of the increasingly complex practice range in
various crafts.
2
T ERMS
OF THE TRADE
Sculpture terminology by the sculptors’ own hands occurs in inscriptions, mostly in building
accounts. The latter generally describe the nature of the work and in the best cases, as was
discussed in the previous chapter, specify prices for various jobs. However, actual names of
professions are very rarely mentioned. Private inscriptions provide us with sculptors’ names
in the form of signatures, the subject of the next section in this chapter. Yet no sculptor in
Athens appears to have signed his work with his name as well as his profession, so the only
way to find an ancient Greek term for sculptor would be if he also was the patron who set up
the statue and chose to commemorate this in the votive or sepulchral inscription.570 This is
unusual. The inscriptions on private votive and grave monuments in Athens in the sixth and
fifth centuries offer no examples of such a procedure.571 Insight in the Athenians’
terminology for sculptors therefore rests once more on literary testimonia.572
Two names for statue-makers are listed in Harris’ overview of professional names:
agalmatopoios and andriantopoios.573 Both terms disregard the material of the sculpture, and
570
Bases with inscribed sculptor signatures have been included in the database even if they did not
meet all the selection criteria of this study.
571
Though arguably, a gravestone could have been set up for a sculptor’s son. Cf. n. 606 and p. 154.
572
Many of the sources for terminology used here are later than the fifth century BC, which decreases
their value as indicators of specialisation in the period of study. However, since terminology is
one of the few sources of information regarding specialisation in sculpture, and (with the partial
exception of Philipp 1968) no previous philological discussions of it seem to exist, an attempt has
been made to collect sixth, fifth and fourth-century terms; the use of later sources was
sometimes necessary to fill the gaps in this evidence.
573
Harris 2002, 88-9; agalmatopoios appears in IG II2 10B line 9, also in Pl. Prt. 311c.
Andriantopoios (maker of (human) figures) is used in an unrelated enumeration by Socrates in
Xenophon’s Oeconomicus (6.13) and as an example in his Memorabilia (a/o. 2.6.6-7; 3.10.6-8);
also in Alc. II 140b. Cf. Hebert 1986, 129.
143
are instead concerned with subject matter: andriantopoios at first seems to suggest someone
who creates human figures, where agalmatopoios evokes a wider range of meaning.574
Agalma can, in fact, refer to such diverse things as (grounds for) glory or honour,575 a gift
pleasing to the gods576 or even just an image in general, including sculpture.577 The best
known meaning of agalma is perhaps a depiction of a deity, but this is only one of many uses
of the word, especially in the sixth and fifth centuries.578 The notion that agalmatopoios
indicates a sculptor’s specialisation in depictions of divinities, as opposed to a maker of
mortals or andriantopoios,579 is not corroborated by the textual evidence from these two
centuries; that kind of nuance only appears in later sources.580 Moreover, agalmatopoios
occurs frequently enough in fifth and fourth-century sources to suggest that it was quite a
common, non-exclusive term for a maker of statues, as a specialisation in divine figures
might suggest.
A similar issue of distinction between sculptors’ labels occurs in Aristotle’s
Nichomachean Ethics. Here, the technical prowess of Polykleitos is compared with that of
Pheidias: while the former is described as an andriantopoios, the latter is considered a
lithourgos sophos.581 Lithourgos is usually translated to English as stonemason, because of
574
Bettinetti 2001, 37-42 gives an overview of both words and their semantic development. Andrias
essentially means an object which resembles (the type of) a man (38), but she notes that it was at
least in the fourth century also used for figurines. The suggestion that andrias refers to sculpture
in bronze, which has been proposed in the past, Bettinetti proves to be unjustified (38-9).
575
LSJ s.v. a)/galma: among the examples listed A. Ag. 208 (with regard to children) and Pi. N. 3.13.
For a thorough investigation of its semantic and linguistic development over time, see Bettinetti
2001, 27-37.
576
LSJ ibid., e.g. Od. 8.509 (of a sacrificial bull) or Hdt. 5.60 (with regard to a tripod). Cf. Bettinetti
2001, 30-1.
577
LSJ ibid. For an example in sculpture, see Arist. Pol. 1336b 15; for image, see e.g. Pl. Ti. 37c.
Literature see Donderer 2007, 25 n. 16; also Bettinetti 2001, 33-5.
578
E.g. Hdt. 1.69.4; 1.131.1; 2.42.6; 2.46.2 (regarding statues of Pan); Lys. 6.15; in contrast with
eikones of mortals, Hdt. 1.31.5; Isoc. 9.57. Cf. Keesling 2003, 10. Stewart 1990, 63-4, takes
these terms as a sign of specialisation, notwithstanding the variation in meaning.
579
Stewart 1990, 63-4; also K. Lapatin, Review, in ABull 79 (1997) 148-9 n. 6.
580
Hebert 1986, 129; Harris 2002, 68-9. The contrast of andriantopoios as maker of men and
agalmatopoios as sculptor of divine figures emerges only in Hellenistic times, e.g. Laterculi
Alexandrini 7.3-9 (T 115) where Pheidias, Praxiteles and Skopas are listed as the latter while
Polykleitos, Myron and Lysippos counted among the former (Hebert 1986). Bettinetti 2001, 39-40
shows that andrias was used for sculptures of divine as well as mortal figures in the fifth century
(cf. Pi. N. 5.40; Ar. Pax 1183e, Av. 1115; Hdt. I.183). Cf. above n. 574.
581
Arist. Eth. Nic. 6, 1141a9-12. The various translations of this passage differ a great deal: e.g. D.P.
Chase (1998) calls Pheidias a scientific or cunning sculptor and Polykleitos a (ditto) statuary; H.
144
the similar meaning of the constituent parts, lithos and the stem erg-.582 However, its use in
connection with Pheidias shows that the work of a lithourgos cannot have been limited to the
production of building blocks or even to advanced architectural work like fluting column
drums.583 A related term is lithokopos, or stone cutter. The ending -kopos may sound as if it
meant something of a rougher method of cutting stones, e.g. in the setting of a quarry: but
Demosthenes uses it for a man ‘who was working on a nearby monument’ in the city, so no
quarrying is involved there.584
Unlike agalmatopoios and andriantopoios, where no material is implied, stone is the
common denominator of the latter two words, lithokopos and lithourgos.585 The wealth of
labels related to stone is no surprise, since the purposes of stone extended far beyond votive
and funerary sculpture in ancient Greece and thus required many semantic variations. The
terminology of bronze production is similarly rich, although chalkeus over time became a
common word for such divergent jobs as casting bronze statues, making jewellery or forging
Rackham (1996) simply sculptor and statuary; T. Irwin (2000) translates a stoneworker and a
bronze worker for Pheidias and Polykleitos respectively. In German, E. Rolfes (and G. Bien) in 1911
translated for Pheidias ‘einen weisen Meister in Stein’ and for Polykleitos ‘einen weisen Bildhauer’
and in French Y. Pelletier (1993) used ‘un habile sculpteur et un statuaire habile’. Thomas of
Aquino offers an interesting version: ‘… dicimus Phidiam fuisse sapientem laterum et lapidem
incisorum, et Polycletum statuificum, idest factorem statuarum (Thomas of Aquino, Exp. Eth. Nic.
6, lect. 5 n. 1180): but how the difference between a carver of stones and a statue-maker should
be defined remains problematic. See also below, n. 618.
582
Apart from li/qoj (stone), also LSJ s.v. liqi/a, which like lithos indicates a precious variant of stone
but can also refer to marble, and liqa/j, a rare equivalent of lithos. Marble is usually specified by
the addition leukos or marmaros, or a geographical indication. The LSJ list of combinations with
lithos is long: there are many varieties for stone-working tools and their application, and for types
of worked or unworked stone.
583
Plu. Per. 12.6.4; Alc. 15.4.1. LSJ also mentions the later word lithoglyphos, sculptor in stone or
marble (e.g. Gal. Adhortatio ad artes addiscendas 5.7; Luc. Somn. 18.12). A term for stone mason
specifically applied to building is lithoxoos, stone or marble-mason; again, this word was also
used for sculptors in general (e.g. Plu. Mor. 74e2). Lithourgos sophos may refer to organising
production of the sculptural programmes of buildings (especially in the case of Pheidias); but the
interpretation of architect is not convincing, because this job revolves around sculpture, and not
so much around construction.
584
D. 47.65; also in Antiph. Soph. 92.
585
For construction, the specification for the material may have been common, which is perhaps to
be expected: when ordering a statue as a votive or even grave monument, the material is purely a
personal choice, while in construction, most of the architectural elements are in a certain material
by default, at least within specific periods. Defining craftsmen by the material which they work is
the most obvious way of distinguishing them.
145
iron weapons.586 In that branch, the material became less important than the craft, the
process of manufacture. Considering the existence of sculpture terms like agalmatopoios,
where neither the material nor the method of production plays a significant role, it is clear
that the boundaries of specialisations in sculpture production are vague. Someone who was a
lithoglyphos would probably not have worked in bronze, but on the other hand, we know that
Pheidias worked in that material and he is also known as a lithourgos sophos. In short, a
craftsman could be described by various names of professions if he was active in more than
one area of statue-making, whether in bronze and marble or in other materials.
Words like agalmatopoios or andriantopoios which, whatever their semantic nuances,
do not refer to the material, operate on a more general level than the previous group. They
lean towards the genre or theme of the sculpture, are more focussed on the final result, and
they also occur less frequently than labels related to materials or production methods.
However, genre-specific terms have the problem that they are likely to have occurred in
compounds (as is the case with andriantopoios, for example), which may have been less
prone to survive in the type of ancient texts on which scholarship relies. Herms, for example,
were apparently produced by sculptors who to a certain degree specialised in them: the
hermoglypheis.587 Similarly, the trade of coroplasts was described sometimes as zooplastein,
literally to mould to the life, or mould (clay) statues.588 The term is very rare in earlier
sources, and later tends to be taken as the moulding (or creation) of creatures or live beings.
In stone sculpture, the equivalent is zogluphos, which is translated as sculptor; but again the
examples are scarce and late.589 Nevertheless, these words show that apart from the material
586
Xalkeu/j (e.g. Il. 14.295; Od. 3.432; Aes. Fab. 346 title; Hdt. 1.68.6; Pl. Cra. 388d4; etc.),
xalkourgo/j (e.g. Aes. Fab. 95.1), xalko/tupoj (e.g. Xen. HG I.26.3) all indicate a blacksmith or
smith, a maker of bronze weapons, a copper or bronze worker or maker of bronze statues (cf.
TLG). Interestingly, many centuries later Plutarch Mor. 820b2 uses xalkotupe/w for ‘making
honorary statues in bronze’.
587
A maker of herms is an e(rmoglufeu/j. It should be noted though, that the range of the meaning of
‘herm’ was probably wider in antiquity than it is considered nowadays. Cf. below p. 271.
588
LSJ s.v. zw«oplaste/w; cf. Lyc. 844. Zw«opla/sthj means Creator in the work of Philo Judaeus (c. 20
BC-50 AD; e.g. De Opificio Mundi, 262.3; 67.10). Pottery terms have been left out of this
discussion since it is a different kind of activity than sculpting in clay, with largely its own jargon.
589
LSJ s.v. zw«oglu/foj and zwglu/foj: AP 12.56 (Mel.). It must be noted that the combination of
sculptural terms in later sources, and the relevant objects themselves in the sixth and fifth
centuries, strongly suggests that those objects and their manufacture must have had a vocabulary
in the earlier period as well.
146
of the sculpture, other semantic elements could be included in the terminology of the
makers, such as a method of production or the subject.590
Figurines were the main business of many coroplasts, and human figures and
animals favourite genres. If indeed zooplastes and zoglyphos refer to a specialisation of
subject matter, similar combinations may have existed for other iconographic themes, and
could have been lost to us due to their infrequent use in texts. This is all the more likely
because the richest sources for stone-working terminology are the contract inscriptions of
large-scale construction projects, where small statuettes are not mentioned. Private
equivalents of such accounts do not survive. The (mostly public) contracting records of
architectural sculpture colour the survival of sculpture terms, giving us a higher frequency
and wider variety of words in for example the lithos range. The small votive figurines in many
different materials that abound in most Greek sanctuaries (and their archaeological
assemblages) are rarely, if ever, worth mention in the eyes of ancient authors. As a result,
their production now lacks the labels which it undoubtedly had in antiquity. This effect is
enhanced by the possibility that small votives or grave gifts could be bought from stock
rather than on commission: no contracts were needed, so no documentation survives. The
preservation of specialist terms like figure-moulding, or the herm-cutter, in later times
suggests that these must have been either common or important specialisations – even if
their main period of use was in later centuries than the sixth or fifth.591
Three semantic types can be distinguished among the terms of the sculpture trade.
Labels of the first category focus at least in part on the material (e.g. those which include a
form of lithos). Of these, bronze or stone-related terms seem to be more numerous: marble
or other specific stone types are conspicuously less common.592 The second group is often
linked to the first, but they include (or are) a reference to how the materials are worked, so
for example, the working (erg-) or cutting (-glyptes) of stone, or how bronze is hammered or
590
This relates to the issue of live models in ancient sculpture, which would demand too much of a
digression from the current topic to be addressed here.
591
It is impossible to determine whether words which first appear in e.g. Hellenistic texts had been
in use before then. However, since sculpture in various materials survives from the sixth and fifth
centuries, some terminology existed for their manufacture. The difficulty remains that the level of
specialisation of such terminology cannot be established by extrapolating from later sources.
592
That being said, lithos meant marble with the additions leukos or marmaros, and marble may well
have been the intended meaning, even if the adjectives were left out (LSJ s.v. li/qoj).
147
cast.593 In this category also falls the word anaglyphe derived from glyphe.594 The first and
second categories are often combined. The third group of labels focuses to a greater extent
on the objects themselves. Zooplastes may be one, if the meaning of creatures for zoo- is
accepted, and hermoglypheis certainly falls into this group. Exclusive emphasis on the object
is rare: at most, the production aspect is reduced to a general term of creation.
Agalmatopoios and andriantopoios are therefore examples of labels which focus on
the result. Even clear-cut descriptive terms, however, can be problematic: because of the
wide semantic range of agalma, a maker of agalmata is rather vague. Agalma may designate
many things, from a cult statue to a gravestone.595 This raises the question whether any
terms distinguish the purposes of sculpture, for example votive or funerary? The tenet that
agalmata were more often votives than grave monuments can not really be verified, but it is
clear that other terms specifically refer to votives (e.g. the general anathema) or gravestones
(e.g. sema or mnema, as many epigrams attest to). Lithos as a feminine noun can mean
tombstone as well (although it is rare), and a common term is stele.596 Many of these words
apply to different types of monuments. An anathema can be anything, from a little vase to a
larger-than-life kouros. A stele can be a public record of laws or treaties inscribed in stone
or a personal votive or grave marker: even its appearance is not precisely circumscribed. It
can be any kind of standing stone, whether with a relief, a carved or painted inscription, or
even without any further decoration.
Sources mostly provide sculptural terms related to material, the work process or a
combination of these. In fewer cases, the terminology refers to the subject of the sculpture,
sometimes combined with aspects of production. Composites of subject and material do
apparently not occur, but their existence cannot be excluded. If they did, they must have
been uncommon. Subject-related terms, on the other hand, appear regularly; and often, their
semantic range is rather wide. Even though they refer to what the sculpture represents, the
593
The difference between casting, hammering or forging bronze can be denoted by numerous
words. For example, chalkochutos or choneutos was used for objects cast in bronze; for bronze
workers cf. above n. 586. Sphyrelaton is a better known word related to hammering metals. Cf.
LSJ; TLG.
594
LSJ s.v. a)naglufh/ : a work in low relief. Its occurrence and derivatives in LSJ and the TLG, however,
mostly date to the Roman period or late antiquity. The root appears in various combinations all
related to carving, cutting or engraving, for example glufh/ (carved work) or glu/pthj (both
engraver and sculptor).
595
LSJ s.v. a)/galma: Pi. N. 10.67.
596
LSJ s.v. sth/lh.
148
‘what’ usually applies to several genres used in the record of this study. The last categories,
terms of material and production, are far more specific. This makes sense if one considers
the settings in which they were used. The various qualities and characteristics of different
materials require expert knowledge. For example, in large projects such as temple-building,
it was essential that suitable techniques and expertise were used in the right places. Specific
terms to indicate specific work were more necessary in projects where many cooperated. The
need for precise labelling would have been less in small workshops of a handful of men,
where jobs overlapped. They used jargon as well, but this would hardly be used in literary
texts and only sporadically appears in epigraphy. Nevertheless, labels for basic aspects of the
work, like polishing or smoothing, prove that professional terminology existed here too.597
Lexically, the most important division in sculptural specialisation is the one between
metal (more specifically bronze) and stone.598 The fact that marble is rarely indicated
separately shows that it was so ubiquitous that the need for differentiation ceased to exist.
The way in which a material is worked is the second most important drive behind
terminology, distinguishing, for example, cutting and moulding. Words referring to themes or
genres, or to the appearance of the finished sculpture are from a semantic point of view
much vaguer. The ancient Athenians who lived with these statues and reliefs, however,
doubtlessly knew who they meant when they talked about the agalmatopoios, and what he
did for a living. From the perspective of production of sculpture, its commissioning, carving
and setting up, subject-related terms were very relevant. For a patron, the choice between
metal or stone would be an early one to make, followed by further specification of the
selected material; but what the statue was to represent was probably at least as important.
Finally, with regard to the sculpture workshop it is difficult to draw direct conclusions
from these terms. The nuances of Greek terminology of stone working are impressive and in
sync with their widespread use among the technically advanced sculptors of ancient Greece.
There are different words for different jobs but, as it appears, not to an extent where parts of
the process, such as e.g. polishing, can be put down as specialised technai. Most likely, such
tasks were done by someone who worked in a workshop, i.e. a sculptor or someone who was
597
E.g. a number of composites of ce/w (LSJ) to smooth; e.g. katace/w means polishing, but also
carving. A famous word for polish, probably with the use of wax, is ganw/sij, which will be
discussed below (ch. III.4).
598
Cf. above n. 574.
149
learning to become one or by a slave. Because of this arrangement, no word for the polisher
was used outside of statue-making circles.
Sculptors specialising in votive or funerary work are not lexically distinguished, and
the terminology of genre specialisation is either too marginal to determine, or impossible to
trace after so many centuries. References to genre or function were perhaps more general,
layman’s terms, for an audience that did not have or need the technical knowledge of those
involved in the actual manufacture. The wealth of terms for sculpture appears to be reflecting
advanced stone-working practices, although not necessarily an equally advanced trading
system of sculpture. The terminology of sculpture may not bring much insight in the
specialisation of the profession or in separate aspects of the work in the workshop, but it
shows that sufficient specialisation existed to require distinctive labelling among the
craftsmen themselves.
3
S CULPTORS ’
H AND S AND SIGNATURES
Signatures are the most direct evidence for the lives and careers of sculptors in Athens. More
importantly, they show something of their behaviour: signing can, for example, be seen as an
expression of professional pride, or a claim to publicity. Through this extraordinarily direct
source, and by means of literary testimonia, this section will investigate the identity of the
sculptors of Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries.
Many signatures are preserved on bases of votives and some on gravestones (table 4,
signature list). Of the votive sculptures in this study, none are signed on the statue or stele
proper. Gravestones sometimes have signatures: a grave stele from the second quarter of the
sixth century identifies Chairedemos as the deceased and Phaidimos as the sculptor.599 An
example from the third quarter is a sculptor’s ethnic on the base of Xenophantes, Parios (pls.
14a-b). The sculptor is thought to be Aristion of Paros, whose name is better preserved on a
599
The base is NYMM 16.174.6, cat. B 188 (IG I3 1196), the stele NYMM 12.158, NMA 4808 (cat. G
34). Some authors consider Phaidimos the sculptor of Akr. 624 (cat. V 2), the Moschophoros
(Boardman 1978, 74) though its base is unsigned. For an overview of all signed monuments the
signature list (table 4); also Künstlerlexikon II, 208-9; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 151. One signature of
his (ibid. no. 431) calls him Faidimo/sofoj.
150
base for a grave monument of a man called Antilochos (pl. 14c).600 After the sixth century,
inscriptions move from grave stelai proper to the bases. Interestingly, the habit of inscribing
the name of the deceased on the grave stele or relief itself returns in the late fifth century,
when the space below the tympanon or on the lower frame is used.601
The final quarter of the sixth century and the first quarter of the fifth are most
prolific in terms of signatures (table 4, chart 4a): 21 survive on votive bases alone.602 Four
signed votive bases from this period have an almost certain connection to extant marble
sculptures, identifying the sculptor of the statue with certainty.603 On bases for grave
monuments from the sixth century, seven signatures are preserved (table 4, pls. 15a-b).604
Two more are on grave stelai, and both of these name Aristokles as the maker (pl. 16a).605
600
Partial signature on EM 10642, cat. B 125; Jeffery 1962, 120 no. 9; Ridgway ASGS, 289 n. 9.
Aristion’s Parian origins are not entirely clear. Cf. Karusos 1961; Künstlerlexikon I, 83-5; MullerDufeu 2002, 147. The second base is EM 10647-10649, cat. B 264. Both bases carried kouroi. For
the epigram, see the database.
601
Statues are inscribed more commonly in the seventh century, e.g. the Mantikles Apollo or
Nikandre.
602
From the late sixth century on funerary bases: base in New York, NYMM 16.174.6 (cat. B 188),
signed Phaidimos; base of Antidotos (EM 10638, cat. B 266) by Kallonides son of Deinios; base in
the Third Ephoria (inv. M 662), cat. B 127, by Philergos; base signed Aristion of Paros, cat. B 125,
EM 10642; base, cat. B 126, EM 10643, and cat. B 17, NMA 12870, frs. of a pillar, both signed
Endoios; two bases signed Aristokles: for Tyr- (or Tymnes) of Karia (cat. B 11, KM I 190) and for
Xenophantes, KM I 389 (cat. B 4).
603
Cat. V 80, Akr. 464 is connected to the base Akr. 9986, 6503 (cat. B 248, IG I3 647). The
inscription identifies Thebades son of [K]y[r]nos as the sculptor (Muller-Dufeu 2002, 216-7 no.
607). The horseman Akr. 571, cat. V 208 belongs to the base EM 6355, 6414, 6285 (cat. no. 66,
IG I3 642) and was made by Gorgias. The kore Akr. 681 stands on a pillar of the same inventory
number (cat. V 11, B 197; IG I3 628) and was by Antenor, son of Eumares. The Potter relief, signed
by Endoios (Akr. 1332, cat. V 164) on the base EM 6520 and AM I 4571 (cat. B 70, IG I3 764). The
combined number is Akr. 13250. Cf. Keesling 2003, 210-4, for a detailed discussion of these
votives. Two other connections are uncertain: EM 6241 (cat. B 3, IG I3 683) with Akr. 693, a kore
by Archermos of Chios dedicated by Iphidike; and EM 6243, Akr. 3850 (cat. B 5, IG I3 641) with
kore Akr. 611 (cat. V 64). For the attribution of cat. B 3 see AMA 118 no. 68, pl. 88, figs. 73a-b;
Ridgway ASGS, 152; for cat. B 5, see DAA 7-8 no. 3; Ridgway ASGS, 131, 432 n. 10.4.
604
Cat. B 4, KM I 389, Xenophantes base is linked to KM P 1051, a horseman; this monument and
cat. B 11, KM I 190, Tymnes base, are both signed Aristokles (below n. 607); cat. B 17, NMA
12870, frs. of pillar of Nelon; and cat. B 126, EM 10643, base of Lampito, signed Endoios; cat. B
127, Third Ephoria M 662, base of Leanax, signed Philergos; cat. B 134, Third Ephoria, base of
Oinanthe and Opsios (?), signed Aristokles; cat. B 266, EM 10638, Antidotos base signed
Kallonides son of Deinios. Of cat. B 139, Athens whereabouts unknown, a signed base from 525500, the inscription cannot be reconstructed.
605
Cat. G 112, KM P 1046 is a damaged fragment of a man’s stele; KM P 1265 (cat. G 113) is a fr. of
a relief with a seated woman, of which only the lower part preserved. The inscription on a strip
151
The fragments are rather battered, and a better example survives on the lower part of a grave
relief of a warrior from Velanideza, proclaiming it to be ‘the work of Aristokles’.606 Below a
horizontal line follows ARISTI/WNOS, which is sometimes interpreted as the patronymic and
part of the signature, and sometimes as the name of the deceased. Two late sixth-century
signatures from the Kerameikos bring the total of Aristokles’ signed sepulchral monuments
from the city of Athens to four (pl. 16b-c).607
Of the signing sculptors of the sixth century, some appear more than once in the
preserved material, and sometimes their existence and their work is corroborated by ancient
authors. This is not the case for Gorgias.608 Had the number of signatures been the measure
of status and success, he would have been very prominent among the sculptors of his time,
the final decades of the sixth century: from Athens, six signed bases for his sculptures
survive (table 4, signature list).609 Of the sculptors who left their names, he is the first to
feature on bases for both bronze and marble statues in Athens. One of his works seems to be
the Akropolis kore 611 (pl. 17a), if the attribution of the plinth with his inscribed signature to
this statue is correct.610 In literature, on the other hand, Gorgias is sadly lost: it is not even
entirely certain whether he was a native Athenian or not.611
along the bottom is [Aristokl]h=j e)pri/hsen (IG I3 1229bis): the ‘rho’ was not corrected, at least
not by chiselling off part of it. See also Künstlerlexikon I, 86; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 147-9.
606
The extra-urban provenance of this famous stele, NMA 29, is the reason why it was left out.
Richter AGA 33-4 no. 47; Willemsen 1970, 36-41 pl. 15.2; Floren 1987, 287 n. 38; Ridgway
ASGS, 261 n. 6.41. The signature is on the frame of the relief. It is tempting to consider Aristion
the father of Aristokles. Muller-Dufeu 2002, 149 no. 419; Schmaltz 2006.
607
KM I 190, cat. B 11 (pls. 16b-c) is the base for the grave monument of the Karian Tymnes and
would have probably carried a kouros. The larger Xenophantes base (KM I 389, cat. B 4) was for a
statue of a horseman. It is therefore sometimes associated with the horseman KM 1051, cat. G
22, but this is uncertain. Künstlerlexikon I, 86; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 149 no. 417.
608
Künstlerlexikon I, 270; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 148-51.
609
On votive bases for marble sculpture: Akr. 3850, EM 6243, cat. B 5; EM 6355, 6414, 6285, cat. B
66. On votive bases for bronzes from the same period: EM 6242, cat. B 77; EM 6245, cat. B 78;
and Akr. 13995, EM 6698, cat. B 147. On a base with an unspecified statue: EM 6244, cat. B 65.
For Gorgias’ signatures see DAA 491-5; IG I3 637, 638a and 639-642 bis; Künstlerlexikon I, 270;
Muller-Dufeu 2002, 148-51.
610
Cat. V 64. See above n. 603, and Muller-Dufeu 2002, no. 425.
611
Overbeck lists Gorgias in the index, but the reference number (356a) cannot be traced. Neither
Pausanias nor Pliny seem to mention Gorgias. According to Raubitschek (DAA 503: listed as
Gorgias of Sparta), letter forms are similar in at least four inscriptions, suggesting that either this
is the sculptor’s own hand or he used the same letter-cutter those four times. Muller-Dufeu
2002, 149 argues that Pliny’s reference is to a fifth-century sculptor from Sparta, who probably
had nothing to do with the archaic Gorgias.
152
In terms of extant signatures, Gorgias’ contemporary Pollias comes second (pl. 17b).612 The
bases of three of his works from the last quarter of the sixth century are preserved well
enough to reconstruct his name with reasonable certainty.613 Another possible signature of
his dates to the early fifth century, on a base for a bronze statuette in the Epigraphic
Museum.614 He too, worked in both bronze and marble and must have been successful to
have his name survive as often as it has. Pollias, like Aristokles, seems quite unknown from
ancient literary sources.615 Possibly, though not probably, he was the vase painter
Euthymides’ father. If so, he wrote a treatise on symmetry, an early predecessor of the Kanon
by Polykleitos.616
Contrary to these sculptors, Endoios features quite often in literary testimonia and in
inscriptions. A pupil of the legendary sculptor Daidalos, he is said to have followed his
teacher to Crete after he was banished from Athens, although Endoios was born in that
city.617 His best known statue (and perhaps the only preserved one) is the seated Athena on
the Akropolis (pl. 17c).618 Pausanias further mentions a statue by his hand in Erythrai, which
612
Künstlerlexikon II, 269 (this is the sculptor known as Pollis, who may be a different person: cf.
below n. 615); Muller-Dufeu 2002, 140-3: Pollias is listed as probably the father of Euphronios
the vase-painter.
613
From c. 525-500 by Pollias: EM 6264, cat. B 220 (pl. 17b); EM 6279, 6270, cat. B149 (both for
bronze votives) and EM 6502, cat. B 189 (for marble votive). EM 5161 (a), 6277 (b), cat. B 186 is
attributed to Pollias based on similar lettering to other signatures of his (IG I3 664b; 727). DAA
221-2 no. 186; Kissas 2000, 131-2 no. 62.
614
Cat. B 243, EM 6265, IG I3 657.
615
Both Overbeck and Pollitt list a Pollis, but neither are certain of the exact period he worked in.
This makes the identification problematic. See Plin. HN 34.91; Vitr. De arch. VII pr. 14. Cf.
Overbeck, Schriftquellen 40 no. 2096, 41 no. 2098; Pollitt 1974, 233; Künstlerlexikon II, 269;
Muller-Dufeu 2002, no. 397.
616
IG I3 663, cat. 150, Akr. 3767, 15595, 3768, no.?. Connection to the vase painter and the writer of
the treatise, see Beazley 1944, 23-4 n. 1; DAA 168-9 no. 150, 522; Philipp 1968, 43; JacobFelsch 1969, 42 n. 133; Kissas 2000, 271-5 no. 56, figs. 351-6. Cf. Künstlerlexikon II, 276-87;
Muller-Dufeu 2002, 392-411.
617
One of his extant signatures is on a pillar from a grave monument, cat. B 17, NMA 12870, which
probably carried a kouros. The inscription is badly damaged and the reconstruction not entirely
certain. Apart from this base for Nelon son of Nelonides, Endoios’ name is on two bases for
reliefs: EM 10643 (cat. B 126; IG I3 1380) was erected to commemorate Lampito; cat. B 140, Akr.
13250, carried the Potter relief (cat. V 164, Akr. 1332). For comprehensive overviews of Endoios’
extant works, see e.g. Viviers 1992, 55-102, 153-74; Künstlerlexikon I, 204-5; Muller-Dufeu
2002, 142-5. Daidalos: Frontisi-Ducroux 1975; Künstlerlexikon I, s.v. Daidalos; Pollitt 1990, 138; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 25-41.
618
Cat. V 90; Akr. 625. Cf. Paus. 1.26.4; Overbeck Schriftquellen 60-1 nos. 348-53; Pollitt 1990, 20.
153
he claims was made of wood.619 Since all extant signatures of Endoios belong to marble
statues, this seems unlikely; but Endoios may have had a talent for more than one material.
One of his signatures – interestingly, an erasure – has the unusual addition kai tonde,620
which has fuelled much scholarly debate (pls. 18a-c). It has been interpreted as anything
from a marketing ruse (yet another one by Endoios!) to a simple listing of the facts, namely
that he made two parts of the inscribed monument. The base in question is a top block of a
pillar which once supported a kouros; base and statue were the grave monument of Nelon (or
Neilon), the son of Nelonides, set up by the father after the son died. The letters of the
inscription seem to have been carefully erased before it was built into the Themistoklean
wall, but remains can still be deciphered:621
)Endoi[o]j k[a]i\ t[o/]nd’ e)poi/e
paido\j Ne/lonoj Neloni/do e)sti\ to\ se=ma / o(\j x’ u(o=i to=<i> a)[ga]qo=i
{i} mne=ma e)poi/e xari/en 622
The wording is more or less clear about the main events, but some aspects are ambiguous.
When Nelon son of Nelonides died, his father ‘made’ a statue for him. This in itself is strange:
unless Nelonides was a sculptor, the word should have been a Greek equivalent of ‘setting
up’ rather than make.623 More curious is the use of tonde instead of the far more common
tode in the signature. Had the neutrum been used, it would have referred to the monument,
619
Paus. 7.5.9; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 144-5 with no. 407.
620
Cat. B 17, NMA 12870; reconstruction of the inscription as in IG I3 1214.
621
Jeffery 1962, 127; Viviers 1992, 72-5. The first two authors agree that building the stone into the
wall probably caused the rasura, e.g. because the inscribed face was visible and should be
smoothed to avoid the appearance of sacrilege. Political reasons, for example, a link to the
Peisistratids and a consequent destruction of the tomb and monument, is problematic for several
reasons, as pointed out by Viviers 1992, 73-4.
622
Version IG I3 1214; also Muller-Dufeu 2002, 145 no. 409.
623
The use of the imperfectum is curious, but then again the metre is hardly faultless either. Cf.
Friedländer 1948, 76-7 no. 69. An argument could be made for a lack of space, especially also in
the signature. In that case the painting of the seated figure would have been included in the
design from the start.
154
the sema. As it is, it can only refer to either a person (for example, the deceased or the
patron) or to a masculinum such as tupos or kouros.624
But if tonde refers to the statue, why is this so emphatically ‘a work by Endoios, too’ ?
Is the reader supposed to acknowledge other work done by Endoios, perhaps even for the
same patron?625 An inscription on a work by Aristokles features a similar formula,626 and the
fact that it occurs twice suggests that these ancient sculptors had few misgivings about
advertising their skills. An interesting idea is that more monuments, or at least one more, by
Endoios, presumably also for the family of Nelonides, stood nearby. The inscription pointed
out the popularity of his work by bringing ‘yet another’ work by Endoios to the reader’s
attention – in short, an advertisement.627 In a third explanation Endoios made the kouros but
also painted the figure of a seated man on the left-hand side of the base’s front face. This
figure would then have been in honour of the father, Nelonides, who died before the statue
for his son was finished.628 In the two possibilities involving other work by Endoios for this
family or standing nearby, the use of the masculine in the signature can hardly be explained.
But if Nelonides was painted on the base after his untimely death, he could be the man whom
tonde refers to. The aspirated kai in the epigram and the kai in the signature may then be
linked: Endoios made the memorial as well as Nelonides’ portrait.629
Endoios’ name once appears in a double signature inscribed in the flutes of a
column, the second signatory being generally accepted as Philergos (pl. 18d): 630
624
The discussion is summarised in Viviers 1992, 71-2.
625
Viviers 1992, 72. The kai in the epigram would in that case point to monuments this patron had
had made on other occasions, while kai in the signature would refer to the other works by
Endoios among those.
626
The piece is in the Third Ephoria: IG I3 1229. In this inscription, the demonstrative is neutrum.
Viviers suggests that the meaning is similar: the family had used Aristokles before and he was
allowed to point this out in the inscription (Viviers 1992, 134-7).
627
Cf. Jeffery 1962, 127 no. 19; Willemsen 1972, 34-5; Ridgway ASGS, 294-5, who is in some
respects doubtful about the interpretation. There is unfortunately no evidence that this
suggestion might be right.
628
Friedländer 1948, 77; cf. Keesling 1999, 511, 525-7; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 144-5 no. 409.
629
Considering the rather simplistic metre of the epigram, it is not impossible that the signature is
metric too, forming the first half of a hexameter. The ‘nu’ could then have been added to make
the syllable long.
630
Cat. B 7, EM 6249. Version derived from IG I3 763. Also Jacob-Felsch 1969, 161 no. 3; Viviers
1992, 77-84, with extensive references; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 146-7 no. 410. There is an
association with a kore, Akr. 602 (cat. V 63), but this is very uncertain.
155
ãEndoioj : e)po[i/esen.
¡Ofs[ia/dej : ] a)ne/qeken : ho ¡A - - Fi/lerg[oj] e)poi/esen
Although damaged, the column clearly shows the dedicatory inscription with on the left-hand
side Philergos and on the right hand side Endoios. This formula is unusual: normally, the two
names would have been combined and followed by epoiesaten. Since a reconstruction of the
complete monument is impossible, there is no telling whether the column had a capital, a
capping block like the base of Nelon, or a simple top plate. There are no dowel holes for
sculpture preserved, and it is difficult to determine any sculptural reasons for the double
inscription. It seems unlikely that two statues were placed on the column, but it is possible. If
the column carried one statue first, another one may have been added later and the sculptor
of this piece signed the column, too. Two separate signatures, rather than two names with
epoiesaten, support this view. It must be noted, though, that unless the column was originally
much larger than what is preserved, two names and epoiesaten might not have fitted in one
flute; so, the current construction may have been to avoid putting two names in different
flutes and using a third just for the verb.
Philergos may well have been either a pupil of Endoios, or a master who worked
under him in his workshop.631 If so, the monument may be the work of Philergos, but Endoios
co-signed because he was the senior sculptor and his name would attract more status for the
patron of the monument as well as new clients for the workshop. D. Viviers has shown that in
antiquity, Endoios was thought to have been travelling much until he more or less settled in
Athens.632 However, it should be noted that Philergos signed work in the final quarter of the
sixth century (table 4, signature list),633 which suggests that he was already independent at
the time. Endoios’ other extant signatures date to the late sixth century too, and this double
signature is his only one in the fifth century. However, it is dubious to base conclusions about
Philergos’ more junior status on the scanty evidence regarding their respective age. Viviers
argues that Philergos, like Aristokles, was a next-generation student of Endoios, but this is
631
See Viviers 1992, especially 82-3 and 99-102; Ridgway ASGS, 288; Künstlerlexikon II, 239;
Muller-Dufeu 2002, 143.
632
His connection with the court of the Peisistratids (Viviers 1992, 101-2) is controversial. See
below, ch. IV.
633
Cat. B 127, Third Ephoria M 662, base for a statue.
156
also difficult to prove.634 It has often been noted in the debate about sculpture workshops
that it is near impossible to identify educational relations between the Athenian sculptors of
the sixth and fifth centuries.635
Two more sculptors with preserved signatures from the last quarter of the sixth
century are Pythis and Diopeithes. The former was probably also called Pytheas: he appears
twice in the material (pl. 19a).636 A Pytheas mentioned by Pliny seems to have lived at a later
time.637 Diopeithes occurs three times on bases for bronze votives and perhaps on one for a
marble dedication.638 Three of these monuments are dated to the first quarter of the fifth
century. No literary sources mention him, but another base with his signature is in Delphi.639
Contrary to those whose signatures are preserved more often, many sculptors with only one
occurrence are mentioned by Pausanias, Pliny and other ancient authors.640 Bion is the most
elusive of this group.641 According to Diogenes Laertius, there were two sculptors of that
634
Viviers 1992, 115-47, 174-82. Doubts on Viviers’ theories expressed by among other scholars
Burnett Grossman, AJA 1994, 786-7; Johnston 1994; Keesling 1995.
635
E.g. Deyhle 1969, 2-3 (on stylistic grounds); Ridgway ASGS 289-90, criticises Jeffery’s attempt to
link sculptors based on letter-cutters’ hands. Jeffery argues that repeated similarities in lettering
combined with the same artist’s signature would show established links between letter-cutter’s
and workshops. One possibility she brought up is the connection between Phaidimos, Aristion
and Aristokles with the letter-cutters known as masters A, B and C: while Aristion took over from
Phaidimos and Aristokles from Aristion, letter-cutters C and E followed suit, taking over from A
and B, who had worked a generation before (Jeffery 1962, 151, passim).
636
Cat. B 90, EM 6266, 6463 once carried a bronze statue and was dedicated by a group of six
patrons. The exact background of this dedication remains somewhat obscure. The signature of
Pythis, also from c. 525-500 is cat. B 182, EM 6506. The base carried a marble statue of Athena,
dedicated by Epiteles. See Künstlerlexikon II, 338; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 206-7.
637
Plin. HN 36.154-7, says Pytheas did detailed silver work. Cf. Pollitt 1990, 234.
638
From 525-500: cat. B 107, EM 6360, 6452, 6493. From 500-475: cat. B 52, EM 6980; cat. B 106,
EM 6246; cat. B 254, EM 6397, 6453. The signature on cat. B 52 is suggested by Raubitschek, and
the inscription is very heavily restored: [-⏕ – m’ a)n]e/qeken a)pa[rxe\n ta)qenai/ai], / [–⏕ – d’
e)poi/e]sen ¡Aq[e]n[ai=oj to/d’ a)/galma]. This would be the only work by Diopeithes which carried a
marble statue. Cf. DAA, 488-90; Künstlerlexikon I, 180; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 208-9 (who does not
list this as one of Diopeithes’ monuments).
639
FD III.IV, no. 4.179 (date c. 480 BC); Muller-Dufeu 2002, 208-9 no. 569.
640
As opposed to the signatures of sculptors from this period, completely unknown in the later
history of art: Prothymos (Muller-Dufeu 2002, 261-7 no. 606), though the name is uncertain, on
a fr. of a pillar for a bronze statue: cat. B 253, EM 6275 (a-c), 6429 (d-h). Hermippos (MullerDufeu 2002, 261-7 no. 604) also worked in bronze: base for a small group, cat. B 81, EM 6250
(pls. 23a-b). A signature of Nesiotes may be on a base for a bronze statue, cat. B 84, Akr. 13262.
Cf. below p. 160-30.
641
Künstlerlexikon I, 116-7; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 158-61, although most items listed there belong to
Bion of Miletus, probably a contemporary of the same name.
157
name, one from Miletos and the other from Chios or Klazomenae.642 The identification of
Bion with a man whose name appears in a signature on the Akropolis remains uncertain,
although the period is close.643 Antenor, son of Eumares, not only made the monumental
kore named after him (pls. 19b-c), but also the original group of the Tyrannicides.644 The use
of a patronymic is unusual for a sculptor’s signature: only three other examples survive, all
from the last quarter of the sixth century.645 It is possible that Antenor’s full name indicates
his higher status.
The last signing sculptor from the archaic period is Archermos of Chios (pl. 20a).646
According to Pliny, a sculptor by that name came from a rather colourful family of sculptors.
First in the genealogy were Melas and his son Mikkiades, who are mentioned without further
specifications. Mikkiades’ son was Archermos the elder, and his sons Bupalos and Athenis
were famous in life and after death, if Pliny is to be believed.647 They reputedly made statues
for sanctuaries, among other places on Delos, and in one inscription presented themselves as
‘the best Chios had to offer next to her wine’.648 It is interesting that sculptors from the
middle of the sixth century would sing their own praises so loudly. They were, after all, hired
by others to make the work that they eulogised. Moreover, these dedications were intended
for a religious context which is often presumed to have been restrictive towards such displays
642
Diog. Laert. 8.58; Schriftquellen 65 nos. 362-3; DAA, 487-8; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 159.
643
EM 6306, 5526, 6423, cat. B 237; cf. previous note.
644
Akr. 681, cat. V 11; for Antenor cf. Künstlerlexikon I, 48-9; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 201-5. The
Tyrannicides (Paus. 1.8.5; Schriftquellen 84-5 nos. 443-7; DAA, 481-3; Pollitt 1990, 41-2) are
not in the dataset, because they are a dedication by the polis, i.e. public. They will be discussed
below, n. 672. For further references see Wycherly 1957, 96-8 nos. 270, 280; Brunnsåker 1971,
passim; for accounts by ancient authors, Pollitt 1990, 1990, 243.
645
Akr. 6503, cat. B 248 (Thebades son of Kyrnos: Künstlerlexikon II, 444; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 2617, no. 607); EM 6261, cat. B 88 (Leobios son of Pyrethiades: Künstlerlexikon II, 5; Muller-Dufeu
2002, 216-7 no. 605); see also above notes 602 and 603, and Akr. 681, cat. V 11 on the CD. For
Eumares, see: DAA, 498-500; Künstlerlexikon I, 225-6; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 200-5.
646
Cat. B 3, EM 6241: base for unspecified statue, c. 525-500. This is one of the three ethnica in
signatures which survives; the others are Akr. 6962, cat. B 9; and Akr. 13639, cat. B 286: both
refer to sculptors from Chios, but due to damage no further identification is possible. Cf. DAA,
484-7; Künstlerlexikon I, 76-7; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 123-7 nos. 337-47 (for the entire family).
647
Plin. HN 36.11-13. On Archermos of Chios senior: Scherrer 1983. This Archermos may have
dedicated a winged goddess (Nike?) on Delos (NMA 21: Muller-Dufeu 2002, 124-5 nos. 339-40:
ID no. 9 (A. Plassart, J. Coupry et al., Inscriptions de Délos, Paris 1926-50. Dated in the second
half of the sixth century). Cf. Schol. Aristoph., Av., 573). Cf. below n. 650.
648
Schriftquellen nos. 314-5; Pollitt 1990, 28-9; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 123-7, in particular no. 337.
158
of self-aggrandisement. In Pliny’s account, Bupalos and Athenis worked around 540 BC 649
but the Athenian signature of Archermos dates from the last quarter of the sixth century, so
it is doubtful if it is their father’s. It is plausible that this Archermos was a grandson of the
one Pliny mentions and who features in an inscription from Delos: yet another generation in
the Chiot sculpture dynasty.650
After the turn from the sixth to the fifth century, the number of signatures falls along
with the totals of bases and sculpture (table 4).651 The distribution of signatures over votives
and gravestones in the fifth century is quite different from the previous century. Notable is
their absence on sepulchral bases from the first quarter of the fifth century, while the last
quarter of the sixth had produced six (chart 4a).652 After this, only few votive bases are
signed. Among the scarce dedications with a signature are a marble votive stele and plaque
from the Athenian Akropolis: it was dedicated by Habronichos in the first quarter of the fifth
century, and Kallon is generally considered the sculptor.653
Two further bases from this period are signed by Kallon.654 One of them is
interpreted as Kalon Aignetes (pl. 20b), but none of the letters of the ethnic actually remain;
rather, the reconstruction is based on Pausanias’ descriptions of the work of Kallon of
Aegina,655 pupil of Tektaios and Angelion, who in their turn learned their craft from the
famed sculptors Dipoinos and Skyllis.656 Pollitt suggests this sculptor might be the same man
649
They were mentioned in the work of Hipponax, who according to Pliny (HN 36.11) lived c. 532 BC.
650
Cf. above n. 647. The base for the Nike statue from Delos NMA 29 is emphatically inscribed by
Mikkiades and Archermos, who are also the dedicators, commenting on the daring design of the
statue. Scherrer 1983, 25 suggests that base and statue could only be so innovative (cf. JacobFelsch 1969, 39, 160 no. 2) because sculptors and patrons are the same. Cf. Künstlerlexikon I,
76-7; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 122-7.
651
Sculptors’ names occurring only once in this period are: Eleutheros (fr. of capital, Akr. 150, EM
6248, cat. B 49; perhaps associated with kore Akr. 429: pl. 23d; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 261-7 no.
602); Xenaios son of Arthmonides (fr. of base for bronze statuette, EM 6268, cat. B 80); Stibeon,
frs. of a pillar for a bronze statue: cat. B 212, EM 6403a (a), 6403 (b), 6494 (c), 6495 (d). These
signatures are damaged and therefore uncertain.
652
Cat. B 139, Athens, loc. unknown, by [------]s; cat. B 126, EM 10643; cat. B 17, NMA 12870,
Endoios; cat. B 11, KM I 190, [A]ristokles; cat. B 4, KM I 389, Aristokles; cat. B 127, Third Ephoria
M 662, Philergos.
653
Cat. V 333, EM 5529. The evidence for the reconstruction of the signature is, however,
insubstantial, because of the poorly preserved inscription: DAA, 508-9; IG I2 717; IG I3 749.
654
EM 6256, cat. B 171 and EM 6257a-b, cat. B 85.
655
Paus. 2.32.5; Pollitt 1990, 34; Künstlerlexikon I, 397-9; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 186-7.
656
Paus. 2.32.5. Dipoinos and Skyllis were ‘the first to win fame in the carving of marble’ (Plin. HN
36.9; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 125-9, 137-9). This was supposedly in the 50th Olympiad or c. 580 BC.
159
as Kallon of Elis, an artist working in Olympia in the beginning of the fifth century.657 If this is
correct, the sculptor appearing in Athenian inscriptions could be identified with the Kallon in
Pausanias. However, Pausanias did not link the Elian and the Aeginetan. The only clue which
could confirm the identification lies in the statues by the two Kallons. One of the bases in
Athens carried a group, probably a bronze chariot with horses and a bronze statue.658 The
monument in Olympia mentioned by Pausanias commemorated a group of children from
Rhegion who were killed in a shipwreck on their way to a choregic festival in Olympia.659 The
children, their trainer and the flute-player who accompanied them were portrayed in the
bronze figures. According to Pausanias, it was highly appreciated in antiquity.660 In any case,
though the genre of the two monuments is similar, an identification of the two Kallons
remains elusive.
Some sculptors’ careers extended from the late sixth century into the fifth, such as,
for example, those of Pollias and Diopeithes. Newcomers with several preserved signatures
from this period are Euenor, Philon and the duo Kritios and Nesiotes.661 The latter two seem
to have had their most productive period in the second quarter of the fifth century and will be
discussed below. Philon and Euenor only occur in inscriptions from the first quarter of the
fifth century. Philon’s name is preserved on two columns, one of which probably carried a
kore and the other the pedestal of a basin (pl. 20c).662 It is the only example in the database
of a sculptor’s signature on a support for a basin. Euenor left four signatures among the
Akropolis material in this study, two of which are linked to preserved statues, for example
Since Kallon succeeded them by two generations, a date between 550 and 520 BC would be
feasible. Kallon’s signatures from Athens both date at least twenty years later. This is only
possible if Kalon came to Athens quite late in his career.
657
Pollitt 1990, 22; cf. Künstlerlexikon II, 395; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 438-41.
658
Cat. B 85, EM 6256, 6256a-d.
659
Paus. 5.25.2-4, 5.27.8; Schriftquellen 88-9 no. 475; Pollitt 1990, 35; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 440-1,
no. 1289.
660
One eulogist was Hippias, sophist and poet from the second half of the fifth century.
661
From 525-500, a low base for bronze from the Akropolis (inv. no. ?; DAA 89-90 no. 84) shows
Nesiotes’ name. Although epoiesen is missing, and no other preserved bases signed Kritios or
Nesiotes date before 500, it must be a signature, for the patron’s name is inscribed too: Alkibios
kitharoidos. More than one patron seems unlikely for such a votive, which may have been a prize
for a contest.
662
Cat B 37, Akr. 6976; cat. B 36, EM 6267 for the basin. See Künstlerlexikon II, 245; Muller-Dufeu
2002, 208-9.
160
the column for the kore Akr. 497 (pl. 21a).663 As in Philon’s case, all occurrences of Euenor’s
name collected here refer to marble statues. Neither sculptor is known from classical texts.664
Two sculptors who appear in preserved inscriptions and in ancient literature are
Hegias and Onatas. The former (pl. 21b) was believed to have taught Pheidias in Roman
literature,665 yet the Romans seem to have had little appreciation for his work.666 Onatas is
said to be the son of a man named Mikon from Aegina.667 Quite a few signed bases for his
work, mostly bronze, are preserved in sanctuaries in various places (pls. 22a-b).668
Notwithstanding the frequency of his signature, Pausanias is quite disparaging about Onatas’
style, which he describes as inferior to the Attic school and Egyptian-looking. Apparently,
however, Onatas’ contemporaries disagreed with Pausanias.
After the first quarter of the fifth century, numbers of preserved signatures dwindle.
From the second quarter, nine inscribed artists’ names survive, but by the last quarter the
total has dropped to two (table 4).669 All signatures from the last three quarters of the fifth
century are inscribed on bases, and all are dedicatory. In the first quarter of the fifth century,
Philon and Euenor are well–represented in signatures, but from the rest of the century only
three sculptors have more than one preserved signature. The higher survival rate of
signatures from the earlier fifth century is likely to be influenced by the Persian debris. Two
sculptors whose bases survive among the debris are Kritios and Nesiotes. Their signature
appears six times on bases for votives: one dates to the first quarter of the fifth century (pls.
663
Cat B 23, Akr. 9744 for kore Akr. 497 (cat. V 188); cat. B 22, Akr. 9746 is linked to the Athena
cat. V 61, Akr. 140. Cat. B 283, Akr. Mag. 13782 does not have a preserved statue; cat. B 14, Akr.
3763, for a marble statue. Künstlerlexikon I, 222-3; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 208-9.
664
It is interesting that three of Euenor’s works were preserved well enough to tell us the name of
the patron; yet more suggestive is the fact that Angelitos apparently ordered from Euenor at least
twice: cat. B 22 and cat. B 283 have a link to the latter, while cat. B 14 was dedicated by a man
called Kiron. Cf. below n. 1055.
665
Dio Chrys. Or. 55.1; also Schriftquellen 85-6 nos. 452-6; DAA, 504-6; Pollitt 1990, 35, 37, 222.
666
EM 6299 (a-c), 6247 (d), cat. B 94 (base for bronze statue from c. 500-475). Notwithstanding
Pliny’s low opinion of Hegias, his works stood in several Roman cities (cf. Plin. HN 34.78). Cf.
Muller-Dufeu 2002, 204-7.
667
Paus. 8.42.1-13; cf. DAA, 520-2; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 186-93; Dörig 1977.
668
Cat. B 236, EM 6263: fr. of a pillar for a bronze statuette. Cf. Paus 8.42.1-13, 5.25.12, 5.27.8,
10.13.10; also Conze, AG no. 9.238; Schriftquellen 79-82, nos. 421-8, 97 no. 524; Pollitt 1990,
36-9, 46, 227.
669
Besides the work of Kritios and Nesiotes, bronze votives from c. 475-450: cat. B 117, EM 6273,
whose damaged signature is [-----]s. Of cat. B 19, EM 12851, the signature refers to someone
from Paros.
161
22c-d),670 while the others come from the second quarter.671 The duo was famous in
Antiquity for their 477 BC replacement group of the Tyrannicides after the Persian Wars;672
and many sculptors were considered their pupils.673 Details about either are, however, scarce
in ancient literature. Kritios is called Attic in one case, but it is not certain whether he was
born an Athenian.674
A contemporary of Kritios and Nesiotes was Euphron, of whose work in Athens two
signed bases for votive stelai or pillars remain.675 The only other fifth-century sculptor with
more than one preserved signature is Kresilas. His career flourished shortly after the middle
of the century. He seems to have been originally from Kydonia on Crete, and is well known
for his portrait of Perikles and his participation in the legendary Ephesian sculpture contest
alongside Pheidias, Polykleitos, Kydon and Phradmon.676 Three bases in the record bear his
signature, all from the Akropolis: two of these are for bronze votive statues.677 Of the third
signed base, the date, dowels and proportions indicate that it may have supported a dying
man in bronze, which is described by Pliny and Pausanias as Kresilas’ work.678
670
Cat. B 160, Akr. 13270.
671
EM 6274, AM I 5408a, cat. B 161 reads Nesotes instead of Nesiotes, but the combination with
Kritios confirms the identification; other examples, all bases for bronze statues by Kritios and
Nesiotes from c. 475-450: cat. B 120, Akr. 13248; cat. B 121, Akr. 13206; cat. B 122, EM 6260;
cat. B 123, EM 6259, 6292, 6443; cat. B 161, EM 6274, AM I 5408a. Künstlerlexikon I 431, II, 1248; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 205, 207; main entry on 210-3.
672
Paus. 1.8.5; Luc. Philops. 18. Cf. also Schriftquellen, 84 no. 443, 85-6 nos. 452-3 and 457-63,
88 no. 469 and 162 no. 900; DAA, 513-7; Pollitt 1990, 43; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 210-1 no. 576.
673
Paus. VI.3.5; Plin. HN 34.85; Schriftquellen 87 nos. 463, 469; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 212-7.
674
Paus. VI.3.5; Schriftquellen 87 no. 463; Künstlerlexikon I 431; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 213 no. 590;
cf. 460-1 no. 1332, 848-9 no. 2542.
675
Cat. B 244, Akr. no. ? ; cat. B 203, EM 6253. Künstlerlexikon I, 230-1; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 342-3,
nos. 987-90 (including two more signatures of Euphron’s from outside of Athens).
676
Perikles’ portrait: Plin. HN 34.74-5; Schriftquellen 157-8 nos. 870-6, 169 no. 946; Pollitt 1990,
69; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 374-5 no. 1076-8. The Ephesian contest: Plin. HN 34.53; Schriftquellen
169 no. 946; Pollitt 1990, 226; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 372-3 nos. 1071-2; also Bol 1998. The
coincidence of Kresilas of Kydonia and Kydon participating casts some doubt on the literary
tradition, though.
677
Cat. B 133, Akr. 6978; cat. B 131, EM 6258. Of the latter the signature is not entirely certain (IG I3
884). Cf. Muller-Dufeu 2002, 376-7 no. 1084.
678
Cat. B 132, Akr. 13201 dates c. 450-425 (IG I3 883). The dedicant was Hermolykos son of
Dietreiphes; the recipient deity is unknown, but Dietreiphes was a strategos in the Peloponnesian
War (Th. VII.29). Cf. Richter SSG2 179-80, 231, n. 129; Pollitt 1990, 69; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 3723 no. 1074.
162
Between the second quarter and the end of the fifth century, Athenian sculpture signatures
provide the names of four artists. From the third quarter of the fifth century are those of
Kalamis and Lykios; to the last quarter date the signatures of Apollodoros and Strongylion.679
Lykios was the son of Myron of Eleutherai, the sculptor of the famous Diskobolos. The son
must have been successful too, for he made a dedication for three hipparchoi in Athens, and
Pausanias describes work of his in Athens and Olympia.680 Probably another Athenian was
Kalamis.681 His only signature in Athens is on a votive base, but ancient texts describe a
number of his works in other cities.682 From the frequency with which he is mentioned, his
standing appears to have been high, at least later in antiquity.683 Although evidence for the
appreciation of his contemporaries is lacking, he received a prestigious commission in the
Aphrodite Sosandra or Saviour.684 According to Pausanias, this statue was dedicated by
Kallias after he had been able to pay part of a large fine for his father-in-law, Miltiades.685
Another one of his statues was set up by Kallias in front of the temple of Apollo Patroos in
the Agora commemorating the end of the plague around 420.686
Apollodoros and Strongylion are the last two sculptors whose names appear among
the signatures in this study. Both signed their works in the last quarter of the fifth century.687
679
Cat. B 135 (Akr. no. ?) signed Lykios of Eleuthera, son of Myron. Cat. B 136, AM I 5128 may be by
[Kal]amis. Künstlerlexikon I, 373-82; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 242-3 (Kalamis), 368-9 (Lykios), 376-7
(Strongylion); for the latter see also Corsa 2004, 55-75.
680
Cat. B 135, Akr. no. ? : DAA 146-7 no. 135. Cf. Ath. 11.486D. Boy with a perirrhanterion in
Athens, Paus. 1.23.7 and a Zeus with Thetis and Himera in Olympia, Paus. 5.22.2-3. Cf.
Schriftquellen 155-7 nos. 861-7; Pollitt 1990, 69-71; Künstlerlexikon II, 24-5; Muller-Dufeu
2002, 368-9 nos. 1054, 1056; ibid. 250-1 (Myron). For the latter, cf. also Corsa 2004, 12-39.
681
Künstlerlexikon I, 373-82; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 242-51.
682
AM I 5128, cat. B 136. Pausanias mentions an Asklepios in Sikyon (Paus. 2.10.3), a Hermes in
Tanagra (Paus. 9.22.1), bronzes in Olympia (some made together with Onatas, Paus. 6.12.1: for
the city of Akragas (Paus. 5.25.5) and a Nike for the Mantineians (Paus. 5.26.6); Strabo describes
an Apollo in Apollonia on the Black Sea (Strabo 7.6.1). Also Muller-Dufeu 2002, 244-9.
683
See e.g. Schriftquellen 77 no. 409, 79 no. 420, 95-7 nos. 508-32, 142 nos. 795-6, 154 no. 857,
1155; also Pollitt 1990, 46-8, 223, 224.
684
Paus. 1.23.2, Luc. Im. 4-6; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 244-7 nos. 687-91.
685
For the story of Kallias and Miltiades see Hdt. 6.136; Plu. Cim. 4.
686
Paus. 1.3.4 describes this statue as an Apollo Alexikakos. The year 420 BC. is somewhat late for
Kalamis the elder: maybe the occasion was an earlier plague, in which case Kalamis the elder is
meant. Otherwise, the statue was put up after the epidemic had ended. The sculptor would then
be by Kalamis the younger.
687
EM 6297, cat. B 146 by Apollodoros dates c. 425-400, as does Akr. 13264, cat. 176, a base for a
bronze horse, possibly the Trojan Horse, dedicated by a Chairedemos son of Euangelos of Koile.
163
An Apollodoros can be found in Pliny, but unless the author made a mistake it is impossible
that the fifth-century sculptor is the artist he mentions, for he was a pupil of the fourthcentury sculptor Praxiteles.688 According to Pausanias, Strongylion specialised in cattle and
horses: he made a Trojan Horse, probably for the sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia on the
Akropolis.689 Ancient texts also mention an Artemis and a boy among his works, some of
them apparently in bronze.690 Strongylion was a favourite in Roman times: the statue of a
boy, thought to be by his hand, was appreciated so much by Brutus that it provoked
comments from Martial.691
The most prolific period of signatures by far is the last quarter of the sixth century
(table 4): 28 signatures by at least 16 sculptors exceed any other quarter century under
consideration. Second in importance is the beginning of the fifth century, with 21 signatures
by at least 10 different sculptors. In view of the peak of votive and to a lesser extent of
sepulchral sculpture from Athens, it is not surprising that most extant signatures are from
around the turn of the century. In the second quarter of the fifth century, the number drops
to nine signatures, which in view of the paucity of material from this time is considerable.692
If the votives in question were set up early in the second quarter, they ended up in the
Persian debris, ensuring their preservation. The relative wealth of signatures from the second
quarter of the fifth century can thus be explained, but it is noteworthy that their numbers
exceed those of votive sculpture. First, this shows once more that votive sculpture was made
in the second quarter of the fifth century; and second, that the corresponding votive bases
had a better chance of survival in the debris than sculpture.
An interesting aspect of the signatures is that in periods when the total number of
signed sculptors exceeds ten, i.e. in the final quarter of the sixth century and the first quarter
688
Plin. HN 36.81, 86; Schriftquellen, 259 no. 1359, 260 no. 1364; Künstlerlexikon II, 65; MullerDufeu 2002, 368-9, 548-9 no. 1612 (whom she considers a fourth-century, and so different
person). Cf. above n. 679.
689
Paus. 9.30.1 on the specialisation; for the Trojan Horse cf. Akr. 13264, cat. B 176; also DAA 2089 no. 176; Künstlerlexikon II ,426-7, Muller-Dufeu 2002, 379 no. 1096.
690
Plin. HN 34.82, Paus. 1.40.2-3 and 1.44.4; see also Pollitt 1990, 71-3; Muller-Dufeu 376-81, no.
1085-1101.
691
Plin. HN 34.81-2; Mart. 14.171; cf. 2.77, 9.50; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 378-9, no. 1092.
692
These nine are divided over two sculptors and a sculpture duo, Kritios and Nesiotes (table 4). Of
the other two signatures little remains, and the sculptor cannot be identified. The ethnic is
preserved once, and may have belonged to a sculptor in the record. Because of this, it was left out
of the sculptor count.
164
of the fifth, they are also more likely to have four or more signatures preserved. After the
early fifth century, not only the total number of signatures falls, but numbers of extant
signatures per sculptor do so as well. Although the numbers are very low to draw any
conclusion from, it is interesting to compare this situation with the archaic period: Aristion is
the only sculptor preserved in signatures in the third quarter of the sixth century, but his
name appears twice in the meagre record. At the end of the fifth century, all surviving
sculptors’ names occur once; but on the other hand, their chances of survival through ancient
literature were much better than those of the sixth-century sculptors.
After the first quarter of the fifth century, no grave monuments have signatures
anymore. The last one is by Philergos on a base for a funerary statue. Philergos and Endoios
in the last quarter of the sixth century are the only two sculptors to have signed work
preserved from both votive and funerary contexts.693 This suggests that sculptors often
worked in one of the branches rather than in both, though again, the small amount of
preserved evidence calls for caution. Similarly, some sculptors appear to have specialised in
bronze or marble. After the first quarter of the fifth century, sculptors signing bases for
bronze sculpture become a separate group from those signing marble. Although ancient
texts show that not all sculptors in this period only worked in one material – think of Pheidias
and Polykleitos – the evidence on the whole shows a move towards specialisation of material
in the fifth century. For in the sixth century, quite some sculptors had worked in both
materials, as signatures attest to: Gorgias, Pollias, possibly Diopeithes and Pythis. Sculptors
who worked in bronze as well as in marble seem to have been more common than those who
produced both votives and gravestones, or so the evidence suggests. Signatures also show
that some sculptors were quite versatile in genre: Kalon’s work ranges from a marble stele to
bronze groups, and Philon apparently made basins as well as statues. Ancient authors
confirm that this was quite common, although some sculptors were famous for one genre in
particular, like Strongylion for cattle.694
There seem to be no ancient authors who describe classical sculptors to be famous
for reliefs. And interestingly, among the large number of preserved reliefs of the second half
of the fifth century, not one has a signature.695 In the sixth century, this had been different:
693
As noted by Ridgway ASGS 292-3. See below n. 752 and signature list (table 4).
694
See above n. 689.
695
Signed bases for stelai or reliefs disappear in the fifth century, along with bases for marble
statuary in general in that period. Signatures on bases for votive statuary from the second half of
165
some stelai are signed, and bases for stelai have signatures as well. There are two possible
explanations for this. First, sculptors may have refrained from signing their reliefs in the later
fifth century. Second, there may have been practical problems. The fifth-century reliefs may
have had bases which were inscribed with the sculptor’s name; but that not one of these
would survive remains a problem. Reliefs proper were no longer signed, because the available
space was used for the patron’s inscription. With the dwindling number of bases, for
example, because reliefs were fastened to walls of periboloi or sanctuaries, little room was
left for signatures.696 Notwithstanding the above, seven signatures from the second half of
the fifth century are preserved. All are, however, on bases which carried statues, and all but
one are for bronzes (table 4, chart 4b). Apparently, in certain quarters of the sculpture trade
signatures were still a common feature: votive statues, and preferably in bronze.
For the sculptors, this dwindling of signatures must have had consequences. Many
could no longer gain a reputation by putting their names on their work, and they must have
relied on other mechanisms for publicity. Of those who obtained major monumental
commissions, some signatures still appear at the end of the fifth century. Good examples of
this (though from literary rather than archaeological sources) are the chryselephantine Zeus
and Athena Parthenos by Pheidias.697 The material evidence of the latter’s activity in private
sculpture at Athens is minimal; but it is certain that he worked in the city, and his lost
signatures deserve some attention. According to legend, Pheidias had his own means of
establishing his authorship: the alleged portrait in the amazonomachy on the shield of the
Athena Parthenos would have worked.698 It has also been assumed that he signed the
the fifth century are preserved in low numbers. Possibly for marble, from 450-425: cat. B 136, AM
I 5128, signed Kalamis, patron Kallias. For bronze: cat. B 131, EM 6258; cat. B 132, Akr. 13201;
cat. B 133, Akr. 6978 all by Kresilas; cat. B 135, Akr. no. ?, by Lykios. Dated 425-400, only signed
bases for bronze votives survive: cat. B 146, EM 6297, by Apollodoros; and cat. B 176, Akr.
13264, by Strongylion.
696
This use of peribolos walls was investigated by Dr. Jan Breder of the University of Bonn. I thank
prof. Marion Meyer for bringing his dissertation to my attention. For votives cf. Van Straten 1992,
259. Reliefs could also be placed in slots cut out of the bedrock, like those still visible between
the Parthenon and the Propylaia.
697
For an overview of Pheidias’ life and work: Chr. Höcker and L. Schneider (1993) Phidias, Reinbek
bei Hamburg; G. Nick (2002) Die Athena Parthenos: Studien zum griechischen Kultbild und seiner
Rezeption, Mainz; and the recent and extensive publication by C.C. Davison (2009) Pheidias: The
Sculptures and Ancient Sources, London. See also Künstlerlexikon II, 210-36; and Muller-Dufeu
2002, 278-343.
698
Paus. 2.43.4; 8.53.8.
166
Olympian Zeus in a location not immediately visible –under the god’s partly raised foot.699
However, Pausanias relates that Pheidias was allowed to sign the column of the Athena
Parthenos on which her arm rested.700 Whether this is true or not, in cult statues a sculptor’s
modesty was deemed appropriate. That Pheidias nonetheless tried to get his signature in
suggests that such wishes must have existed, or the issue would never have arisen.
The question is whether less prominent Athenian sculptors had similar expectations.
Is the fact that none of the small reliefs from the later fifth century are signed an indication
that lesser sculptors were not allowed to do so? Or that they did not care? The material seems
to suggest the latter. It is understandable that signatures were most desirable on major
commissions, whether the reasons were honour, publicity or something else.701 Thus, more
complex bronzes continue to be signed, while in other categories of sculpture it is no longer
done. The decline of large-scale stone sculpture in the round fits in with this view: fewer
marble monuments worth the signature were being made. Moreover, large bases offer more
than enough space for signatures, but the edges of a relief are quickly filled with the names
of the patron or the deceased, or both. Nonetheless, sculptors could have signed on the side
faces or the reverse, which according to the material studied here, they did not. Even on
monumental gravestones like the Hegeso relief, where there was ample room and the reverse
could have been used, there is no signature. In short, signing became the domain of votive
sculpture in the round, in particular bronzes.
Such practical reasons aside, patrons must have had an influence on what was signed
and where. Smaller votive reliefs, of which many were set up close together and some
perhaps hung or erected in slots in the ground, without bases, would have offered little room
for signatures. In any case the inscriptions would have been very small. On bases for large
bronze sculpture, signing was effective (as it had been in archaic times) for sculptor and
patron: their reputations were mutually enhanced. Since there was room for a large
inscription, the signature was visible for passers-by. From a practical and perhaps a social
point of view, this was advantageous to all involved. Those who refrained from signing may
have belonged to a different branche in the sculpture world: not the Strongylions or the
699
Donderer 1996, 92-3; 2007 passim. In the former case the signature was ‘underneath the feet’,
according to Pausanias (5.10.2). Cf. Donderer 2007, 25-6.
700
Plu. Per. 13.9. In another version he was not allowed to sign: cf. Cic. Tusc. I.15.34
701
E.g. on the dedication of Kallias signed by Kalamis, cat. B 136, AM I 5128: above p. 71 and n. 95.
The only grave base after the mid-fifth century, is cat. B 128, EM 10254, for Menesthos (450425: cf. above n. 209).
167
Apollodoroi, whose grand bronzes warranted signatures. These were the many sculptors who
made marble reliefs, sometimes of excellent, sometimes of rather poor technical quality, who
fed the growing Athenian market for sculpture. Whatever their rank in the sculptural
hierarchy may have been, there is no indication that they signed their work.
4
T HE
SCULPTURE SHOP
South-west of the Athenian Agora lay in classical times what is now known as the
Residential-Industrial District (map 15), in which a remarkable collection of houses and
workshops survives. The evidence from the latter can provide invaluable insight in the dayto-day activities of the sculpture trade. This section presents the evidence of workshops in
this and some other parts of the city of Athens. The corresponding activities of sculptors, and
more importantly, of the support personnel in the art world, will follow in the next section.
Since built structures or installations are expendable when making sculpture (to this
day sculptors work on the renovation of the Parthenon out-of-doors), it is not surprising that
rather few marble workshops were found in Greece. However, although this is the case for
the archaic period, some workshops from the classical period are preserved. Since marble
was definitely carved in Athens in the sixth century too, the fact that the workshops where
this happened are missing from the archaeological record needs some explaining. For one,
sculptors may not have used fixed workshops before the fifth century. Since they travelled
around, a built workshop would have been impractical. Second, they may have been
destroyed, for example in the Persian wars. If built workshops were in use for a longer
consecutive period, however, marble chips and dust should still have been found. Three, the
workshops may be in an as yet unexcavated location.
Had there been no workshops dating to the fifth century, one could easily have
concluded that sculptors simply did not use built workshops in archaic times; but workshops
from the fifth and fourth centuries are quite numerous. Most prominent in the Athenian
excavation records is the house of Mikion and Menon,702 built in the second quarter of the
fifth century on a large fill which was put in to level the terrain. It lies just north of the
702
Shear 1969, 383-94; Boersma 1970, 248 no. 149; Börner 1996, 84-6, 105-06, 58-9; and
Zimmer 2006, 36.
168
Residential-Industrial District, across the road from the west end of the South Stoa (map
16a).703 Mikion is considered the earlier of the two sculptors. He is presumed to have worked
in the shop immediately after its construction in the second quarter of the fifth century. His
name is preserved in a fecit inscription on a bone stylus found on the site (pl. 23c).704 Menon
must have been the last sculptor to work in this house, according to the date of some graffiti
on pottery in the early third century BC.705 Though both names are handed down by the
household objects of the workshop, professionally Mikion does not survive: he has no
signatures in the record, nor, it appears, in other epigraphic or literary sources.706
The size of the plot of this house changed relatively little for as long as it was in
use.707 The south-east wall of the building which faced the street showed a construction of
dressed polygonal limestone to a height of about half a metre and mudbrick further up. On
the outside of the building, the blocks were ‘left to protrude irregularly’,708 while on the
inside they were carefully smoothed to an evenly dressed surface; most of the other walls of
the house were less meticulously worked, or so the remaining stretches indicate. The rooms
were spaced around a courtyard (room 3, map 17a). The excavators thought that room 8 was
the actual workshop, because of thick layers of marble chips and dust in every stratum.709
Further conclusions on the layout are hampered by later building activity which disturbed the
lower layers. However, the remains show that some of the rooms were split up over time.
703
Shear 1969, 383-94; Lawton 2006, 17-9; Zimmer 2006, 36.
704
AM BI 819: Lawton 2006, 17-8 fig. 16. The remaining inscription was O MIKION EPOI, with part
of the first omikron worn or broken off, and the last part of the phrase omitted. It was found in
the lowest level of room 8, which Shear supposed to be the main work area of the building (Shear
1969, 389, pl. 102b).
705
Two kantharoi found in the Demeter cistern inside the house: AM P 897 (Shear 1969, 390; Lawton
2006 19 fig. 17); AM P 898, (Shear 1969, pl. 102c). Cf. Miller 1974, 194 n. 2. Ibid. for fragmented
pottery of Menon’s time.
706
Stewart 1990, 33 notes that a Menon worked with Pheidias. He corroborated the charge of
embezzlement. That this Menon would be an ancestor of the sculptor who was the last to work in
the workshop cannot be proved. The absence of signatures of a sculptor by either name from the
fifth-century material can mean two things: either family names were less consistent than Stewart
presumes and among and sculptors with different names worked here, or (above, p. 168) this
family rarely signed their work.
707
Shear 1969, 384-5. For the pottery found in the fill (late sixth century to early fifth), ibid. n. 4.
Miller discusses the most recent pottery and a coroplasts’ dump (presumably from a neighbouring
workshop) found in two cisterns in the house from the late fourth to early third c. BC (Miller 1974,
198-9, 209-10; 228-9; passim).
708
Op. cit. Shear 1969, 385-6 fig. 2.
709
See above n. 704.
169
First, room 5 was separated from 7, and rooms 8, 9 and 10 were partitioned around
approximately 420 BC.710 In the second quarter of the fourth century, the house was
renovated and the courtyard was given a different shape. In the process, room 4, which had
been a shop separate from the house (judging from the absence of a connection), was
demolished.711 The building was probably refurbished or extended every other generation in
the fifth and fourth centuries, though the plot was not extended in any considerable way. The
first remodelling resulted in more and smaller rooms, while later the shape of the courtyard
was altered and a room, possibly another shop, was added (number 6, map 16a), leaving the
partitioned space of previous refurbishments intact. A well was dug out into one of the small
cisterns operating in the final phase, providing water for the inhabitants of the house and
possibly for the work (notably smoothing and polishing of the marble) and datable pottery
and terracotta figurines to the excavators.712 For the almost two centuries during which it was
in use, its occupants always seem to have been marble workers: every subsequent layer
contained the marble chips characteristic of the trade, and a few unfinished pieces from
various periods were discovered in the house and its cisterns.713
South of the house of Mikion and Menon, past the crossing of the Street of the
Marble Workers and the street leading to the Piraeus gate, several houses and workshops
were built between the second quarter and the end of the fifth century (map 15).714 These lay
in the valley west of the Areopagos, in the Residential-Industrial District where at least five
different buildings had one or more rooms with traces of marble working from some time in
the fifth or fourth century.715 A few, like the north-west room of the so-called Poros Building
(map 15) or the courtyard of house D (maps 17a-b) served as marble workshops only briefly,
710
Shear 1969, 386; for the date in particular ns. 5-6.
711
Ibid. 388, for the dates ns. 9-10. Cf. the dotted lines in map 16a.
712
The figurines were not considered an indication that the workshop had switched to terracotta:
firstly, the marble chips continued in the contemporary layers in room 8, and secondly the debris
may well have come from a coroplast’s workshop in a badly preserved building to the West and
North (Shear 1969, 393).
713
Shear 1969, 389. Two trial or training pieces from the fourth century are AM S 195, of a seated
female figure, and AM S 201, a relief in the first stages. See also pl. 23e and Lawton 2006, 18-9
and figs. 18-9.
714
Young 1951, 187-252. Cf. Camp 1986, 142. Reports on other excavated houses in Athens from
archaic to hellenistic times, e.g. Thompson 1959; Lauter-Bufe and Lauter, AM 86 (1971), 109-24;
Shear 1971 and 1973; Thompson and Wycherley 1972; Nevett 1995; Parlama and Stampolidis
2000, passim; Brouskari 2002, 44-55.
715
Young 1951, passim; Boersma 1970, 250-3 no. 151; Zimmer 1999, 468; id. 2006, passim.
170
because they had been built for other purposes, or because the trade which was plied there
changed.716 Others were used to make sculpture in for longer.
According to the excavator R. S. Young, house G, west of the Street of the Marble
Workers, was used as a sculpture workshop and dwelling in the second half of the fifth
century; admittedly, firm evidence of the manufacture of sculpture dates in this case to the
first decade of the fourth century.717 Across the street to the east was a workshop in which
troughs were built along the inner walls (house F, maps 15, 16b). Large numbers of animal
bones were discovered in a pit just outside.718 North of house F lay another workshop, house
H. It is poorly preserved, and the only certain thing about it is its use by marble workers.719
Immediately east of the complex of houses H, F, E and D from north to south, ran the
south branch of the great drain, built in the early years of the fourth century BC. Before then,
there had been an open channel, along which ran a path connecting the Agora with the south
side of the city. The Street of the Marble Workers forked just south of the bridge at Piraeus
street, on a small open square south of house G. Its eastern branch all but disappeared when
the drain was built in the early fourth century, while some of the house owners along the
street took the opportunity to move their walls out, founding them on the retaining walls of
the new drain.720 At the same time, the northern part of the Street of the Marble Workers was
cut off from the Agora proper (at least for carts) by a small flight of steps; possibly the same
was done at the so-called Areopagos Street running east of the Street of the Marble Workers
(map 15).721 Both of them still could function as thoroughfares for traffic, although carts
could now only drive up to Piraeus street near the house of Mikion and Menon.
716
Young 1951, 179-81: the north-eastern annex to the poros building was used as a marble
workshop between the end of the fifth century and the middle of the fourth; cf. Börner 1996, 989); Young 1951, 222: house D. Here, some marble working was only practised in the second
period, after the south branch of the Great Drain had been built in the early years of the fourth
century, while the main activity was forging iron and bronze.
717
Young 1951, 234-6. The western part of the house is lost due to later Byzantine construction;
this is also the reason for the lack of datable material.
718
See the following page, 172 for a description of this pit.
719
Young 1951, 229-33: ‘…We uncovered a bit of the Greek floor level at its northern edge; it was a
characteristic marble chip fill floor, with enough marble dust to indicate that it had been formed
on the spot by the working of marble, and that the house was probably another shop where
marble was worked.’
720
Young 1951, 161-5. House G was expanded: new troughs were put in approximately where the
old walls had been.
721
Young 1951, 147 (though undated) and 164.
171
House K, built in the second half of the fifth century, lay south of the Poros building and
adjoined the later drain on the east side (map 15). It was used in the first half of the fourth
century as a marble workshop: marble chips were found in the north-east room, while two
southern rooms which were broken through early in the fourth century served as storage for
large quantities of carving debris.722
The district must have been bustling with all kinds of crafts in the late fifth century.
Apart from marble workshops, the excavators found evidence of one or more smithies, two
coroplasts’ shops (one probably from Hellenistic times) and several shops or workshops of
which the function is less obvious.723 Particularly tantalising is the craft practised in house F
(map 16b). The material from its premises contains a large quantity of the knobbly ends of
bones as well as some sawn-off straight pieces, so bone-working must have been a main
activity in this workshop.724 This is also the house with troughs or vats along its inside walls,
and the question is: how do these relate to the bones? The vats were built to a width of
slightly under half a metre, sunk into the space’s floor along three of its interior walls and
part of the fourth, and lined with waterproof cement. Their original construction date is
around the middle of the fifth century. The floors were earthen except for the pebble-paved
top level, which dates to the very end of the fifth century.725 Two small containers in the
north-west and south-west corners interrupt the vats, and two wells provided water.
North of house F (map 15), in the open area between it and the marble workshop
house H, a tank was found. Its walls yielded pigments and a crust consisting of a glassy,
granular substance. It also contained more carefully sawn-off ends of animal bones and a
continuous assemblage of pottery from the Geometric period to the first century BC.726 The
tank was closed up in Roman times, and its fill seems similar to what was found underneath
house F; that fill dates before the second quarter of the fifth century. Despite this, the date of
the bones, glassy substance and pigments cannot be determined definitively. The purpose of
722
Ibid. 238-46.
723
Ibid. 222; evidence for the changing use of the house with the bronze workshop also presented in
Börner 1996, 92-3. A Hellenistic smithy was probably located in house O, SE of house K: bronze
slugs and terracotta moulds were found there (ibid. 269). Coroplasts (ibid. 249) possibly also
worked in House G (Hellenistic: ibid. 235-6) and perhaps it was the final function of house K
when the adjoining house L came to be used as a ‘terracotta factory’ (Young 1951, 236, 245,
249). Cf. Boersma 1970, 250-3. Zimmer 1999, 468-9.
724
Young 1951, 272.
725
Ibid. 231-2. Cf. Börner 1996, 95. It seems to have gone out of use in Hellenistic times.
726
Young 1951, 233-4.
172
the installation is uncertain: the vats were suitable for soaking, for example, in activities like
dying textile or tanning leather, but the excavators found no stains or other evidence
suggesting such use.727
Perhaps house F was simply used for laundry (though the vats seem impractically
placed and rather small for this), but as will be discussed in the next section of this chapter, a
more comprehensive interpretation offers itself within the wider context of the industrial
district. For now, the conclusion is that at least six different buildings in the valley west of the
Areopagos were used as workshops for marble (including the house of Mikion and Menon) at
various moments during the second half of the fifth century and in the fourth. Some of these
were active for a short time, others for longer, but several were always in use simultaneously.
The obvious explanation for a relative proliferation of marble workers at this time and place
lies in building activity on the Akropolis. In the second half of the fifth century, demand for
marble workers surged here, directly below the main site.728 Once the last major projects, the
Nike temple and the Erechtheion, were complete, workshops had several options. They could
move to non-architectural private sculpture, should there be a market for it, or to marble
furniture and other functional objects; they could leave Athens for building projects
elsewhere; or they could abandon marble and move to other materials, such as for example
terracotta or bronze.
Terracotta in particular seems to have gained popularity in the second half of the
fourth century in the industrial district, though not before. At that time, several of the marble
workshops in the area were transformed for different uses; some were left empty.729 By
727
Ibid. 233. It has been suggested that the combination with the bones which were found there
(which admittedly may be from a later level) points to leather-working (Börner 1996, 95).
728
Young 1951, 271-2 lists previous scholarship. The continuously high demand for labour in
Athens contrasts with Epidauros, where local knowledge of stone-working was low (cf. above ch.
II). There was no major quarrying or stone industry in the region. In short, the Epidaurian
Asklepieion was unparalleled. Athens and some other poleis, e.g. Corinth, had experienced
resident stone workers; yet these cities were exceptions, for few places could maintain such
concentration of labour could (Burford 1969, 88, 203-6; 1972, 65-6). Remains of what is
considered a temporary workshop for the building programme exist on the Akropolis itself:
Building VI (the ergasterion) on the south side of the hill, dated to the 440s (Boersma 1970, 243;
Stewart 20081, 404).
729
After the marble workshops had disappeared from the Areopagus area in Hellenistic times, the
activities of the Street of the Marble Workers shifted to the Agora, in particular the South Stoa II
and the area of the library of Pantainos. Wycherley and Thompson (1972, 187-8) have suggested
that the location of most of the Roman workshops is determined by the presence of the ruins of
173
contrast, after the completion of the main construction work on the Akropolis there seems to
have been no general abandonment of the workshops. If there was, other sculptors moved in
very soon.730 In the fourth century, marble artefacts continued to be made in the area, and
there are indications that it was mostly sculpture and not up-scale furniture that was being
made: the marble debris in the area is interspersed by fragments of unfinished sculpture.731
The continuity of the marble workshops in the Residential-Industrial District is
evident, and so is their place in the city. The evolvement of a Street of Marble Workers both
near the Akropolis and the road to the Piraeus Gate had practical advantages, in delivering
supplies as well as in dispatching sculpture. It also could attract clients.732 The road was an
old path before it became a proper street, and continued to be used until late Roman times.
In the fifth century, it was a main link between the Agora and the Pnyx, the western part of
the city and the Akropolis.733 Thus, it must have been a busy road, allowing a continuous
stream of passers-by to look into the workshops and watch the carving. It is obvious why,
after the pace of the great building programme had slackened, sculptors chose to stay.
The built workshops from the fifth century may be taken as an indication that in
earlier times, Athens must have had marble workshops as well, even if much evidence for
sixth-century workshops appears to have been lost over the centuries. The industrial district
was occupied in the sixth century, but apparently not for marble working: an example of its
use is the archaic cemetery in the south of the later Residential-Industrial District (map
8b).734 The Akropolis itself has yielded some marble chips and other sculptural debris, but
Sulla’s destruction, which were a main source for recyclable stone. Similarly, a smithy in the same
area may have used dowels from the debris.
730
Except for the Poros building, which was only briefly used as a marble workshop in the fourth
century. However, it was certainly not built as a marble workshop and probably reverted to a more
suitable use.
731
Notably the fragments of a hand and herms from the fourth century BC, the marble chip dump in
house K, the street in front of house G and the Poros building: AM S 1350, S 1426 and S 1427.
Young 1951, 271 pl. 84b. Others, mainly basins, date to the Hellenistic and Roman period (Young
1951, 270 pl. 84a). Stewart 1990, 33, links the activity to the many gravestones produced while
the ban on them was lifted, between 430 and 317 BC (op. cit.; cf. below ch. IV.6) but this seems to
be more relevant for the fourth century (cf. table A, chart A).
732
For similar considerations about the placement of a sculpture workshop in Aphrodisias
(admittedly of a much later date), see Rockwell 2008, 92-3.
733
Young 1951, 145, 284; cf. Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 192-4.
734
Young 1951, 139; cf. Young 19511 for the archaic roads and the archaic cemetery on the south
edge of the area; also Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 192-7. The parts of the district which
174
this material is dated between Kimonian times and the beginning of the construction of the
Parthenon, to the same period when several of the marble workshops in the industrial district
were set up.735 The lack of earlier evidence is curious, because on the Akropolis, construction
and marble carving were certainly going on in the sixth century.
The larger part of the production debris from the Akropolis must have been buried
(as, for example, the chippings found in 19th-century excavations) or disappeared, by
accidental fires or for the production of cement. Another option is that the work was done
elsewhere entirely, but this seems very unlikely for large sculptures such as the Parthenon
pediments or architectural elements. For individual votives, however, workshops further away
are at least possible: one can hardly imagine that sculptors would have been allowed to work
on the Akropolis for private patrons, especially considering how full of dedications, altars and
buildings ancient sanctuaries were.736 The final finish of the statue may have been a different
matter, but is hard to imagine actual carving being done inside the temenos, especially if
major construction work was going on at the same time.
In sum, the evidence from workshops in the sixth and fifth centuries varies. Sculptors
worked on and around the Akropolis in both centuries. Debris on the Akropolis and nearby in
the industrial district confirms such activity In the fifth century (and for the latter site, in the
fourth). Contexts from the sixth century, however, are lacking. Were it not for large numbers
of archaic sculpture, it would seem as if there were no sculptors in Athens in the sixth
century. And perhaps, in a way, this is true. The evidence of the fifth and fourth centuries
comes from settings where sculpting was practised for considerable periods of time.737 If
sixth-century sculptors were more itinerant than later ones, as was suggested in the previous
chapter, they would have stayed in Athens only briefly while working on a commission and
then moved elsewhere to take the next. The manufacture debris of a single statue in one
location cannot compare to continuous and large-scale building on the Akropolis, nor to
large numbers of gravestones and votives produced over generations in the fifth and fourth
centuries by resident sculptors.
showed evidence of sixth-century use lack signs of marble working, e.g. the Poros building
(Young 1951, 177).
735
Lindenlauf 1997, for example, 67-9; see also above n. 107. Similarly, much building debris has
been excavated on the sites of some public buildings in the Agora built in this period, e.g. poros
debris in the Stoa Poikile (Shear 1982, 13-4 n. 16; cf. 30-2).
736
An exception may be possible in the final finish of the statues: see below p. 184.
737
See also Zimmer 2006, 36.
175
One or more sixth-century workshops may well be found in Athens at some point: the work
had to be done somewhere, probably within or close to the city.738 But compared to the fifth
and fourth centuries, the lack of preserved contexts from the archaic period is noteworthy.
Perhaps it reflects a shift in practice from the sixth century to the fifth. The quarries at Mt.
Pentelikon yielded unfinished sculpture, among them a seated goddess, a lion and a colossal
kouros, all carved to a relatively advanced stage – enough to establish their archaic date.739
This coincides with the earlier suggestion that sixth-century sculptors went to the quarries
more often than classical ones, to do the pre-cutting themselves.740 Debris of sculpture
production is hard to find in such unfixed settings and even harder to date. That said, the
unfinished pieces in the quarries suggest that in the archaic period, these are the only places
where unfinished pieces and debris accumulated, so that the traces of production show up in
the archaeological record.
Thus, sixth-century sites of marble working, as they may be called, are unlikely to
stand out much in Athenian (city) excavations. Nonetheless, it is difficult to imagine that
sculptors who left numerous signatures, such as Gorgias, Endoios, or Kritios and Nesiotes,
stayed in the city so briefly that a place to work, perhaps combined with a residence, was
unnecessary.741 For the non-Athenians among these sculptors, there was no question of
buying land in Attika even if they had wanted to, but renting a house or workshop must have
posed few problems. Perhaps an area close to the Akropolis or other sanctuaries (or any
other convenient location, for example, the outskirts of the city near transportation routes)
was allotted for carving sculpture, or naturally developed into a sculpture area over time.742
738
Ridgway 1993, 293 argues that sculptors in the archaic period in all likelihood had ‘more or less
permanent establishments’.
739
Korres 1994, 88-9. See also Wiseman 1968; Carpenter 1968. In the Spilies quarry on Paros,
unfinished sculptures were also found, some probably from the fourth century (Schilardi 2001,
53); but others found in workshops close to this quarry show a wider chronological and
typological range (korai, basins and column drums from archaic and classical times).
740
Chatzedemetriou (2005, 88) suggests they could have imposed on existing workshops. Though
this is certainly possible, it should be noted that if the borrowed space was a marble workshop, it
would still have left the evidence, and if it was some other kind of workshop the dusty working of
carving would in many cases have disrupted the original activity.
741
For these signatures see the previous section, ch. III.3.
742
For location of ‘noxious’ workshops just outside of the city, cf. e.g. Parlama and Stampolidis
2000, 34; Zimmer 2006, 35. The story of Lygdamis also implied that countryside estates of
patrons could offer space to work.
176
Alternatively, patrons could have offered sculptors a place to stay on their land, if the estate
was suitably located.
Contrary to marble working, bronze casting is amply attested in archaic Athens. This is
especially relevant since some sculptors worked in both materials and there is no personal
reason why they would prefer a built workshop for one but not for the other. Of course, the
similarity does not apply to the casting installation, which would be located as far as possible
from residential areas. Marble workshops cause annoying noise and dust, but this can be
kept to a large extent indoors, as for example, the use of rooms in the house of Mikion and
Menon and house D suggests. The process of bronze casting, however, results in soot,
smoke and stench. As is the case with potter’s kilns, foundries are somewhat more likely to
be located on the outskirts of cities, for example, near the cemeteries where bad smells were
rife anyway.743
The so-called Archaic Foundry in the Agora apparently defies these practical views. It
was built around the middle of the sixth century on the east side of the Kolonos Agoraios
(map 7a), and was placed between what would in classical times become the Old Bouleuterion
and the temple of Apollo Patroos (map 7b).744 At the time of its use, however, there seems to
have been no residential context, nor even remains of a fixed structure that served as a
workshop or shop. The same circumstances apply to other foundries from archaic Athens.745
The Archaic Foundry is a simple installation for casting a statue or parts of statues, the
moulds for which were buried in a pit. Its remains reflect the many technical problems which
ancient bronze casters faced.746 Obviously, casting pits and pieces of terracotta moulds are
more likely to stand out in excavations than occasional heaps of marble debris from a statue
carved in the open air or in a make-shift workshop which was demolished afterwards.
743
Stissi 2002, 39.
744
Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 137; Zimmer 1990, 27-9; id. 2006, 34-5.
745
As listed in Zimmer 1990. A workshop on Thasos is from an urban context and seems located in a
house; but it dates to the second half of the fifth century: Zimmer 1990, 32 n. 199 (with ref.); id.
2006, passim.
746
Mattusch 1982, 11; also 12 fig 26; 1988, 56; Zimmer 1990, 33.
177
Many foundries in Athens date from the fifth and fourth centuries,747 which may be attributed
to the rising market for bronze statuary at the time. However, in concurrence with the trends
in bronze and marble sculpture outlined in the first chapter of this study, this fifth-century
increase in the number of bronze workshops runs parallel to a rise in workshops for marble
sculpture. Thus, the excavation record suggests that in the fifth century, fixed workshops
became more numerous across the board, rather than being an indication that bronze casting
became more popular than carving marble.
In the classical period, a main difference between marble and bronze workshops is
that the former sometimes seem to have served as houses as well as work places, while even
built foundries rarely had a residential function.748 Undoubtedly, this is a result of unpleasant
heat, noises and smells caused by foundries. If others preferred not to live in its vicinity, why
would bronze workers want to? Sculptors who worked in both materials could have had a
workshop for marble in which they finished the bronzes, and a casting pit somewhere further
away. A possible example of the tendency to locate foundries far from housing or, in this
case, in an area where bad smells linger anyhow, is Building Z in the Kerameikos (map 6b).749
Transportation was another factor which influenced the positions of both casting
installations and marble workshops in the city. The foundries near the Hephaisteion or south
of the Akropolis are conveniently located for delivering statues to their destinations.750 If
statues received their final finish in the places where they were to be set up, the vicinity of
747
Zimmer 1990, 34-83 lists 11 casting installations, almost all without any buildings nearby, from
the fifth and fourth centuries: Building Z, Kerameikos (Knigge 2005, 5 pls. 2-4); ‘Mudbrick
foundry’ south-west of the Archaic Foundry (Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 190; Zimmer 7880) and one north of the Kolonos Agoraios (Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 189; Mattusch 1988,
356). Three installations are south of the Akropolis: the ‘workshop of Pheidias’ (Zimmer 1990,
62-71, esp. ns. 296-7); one east of this and one near the Asklepieion. A foundry was near the
Olympieion; three small ones on or near the Agora, one in its south-west corner, near the Street
of the Marble Workers: the ‘Keyhole foundry’ (Zimmer 1990 80-82).
748
The traces of a large building, probably open on one side, near ‘Pheidias’ foundry’ south of the
Akropolis may have served to assemble and/or finish the statue, perhaps the Athena Promachos,
made in the casting pit next to it; it was open towards the pit, so it is unlikely anyone would have
lived there (Zimmer 1990, 67-71).
749
Zimmer 2006, 35. A fourth-century bronze workshop in the Commercial Building was excavated
just outside the Agora, northwest of the Stoa Poikile (Shear 1984, 43-50; Camp 2003, 247-53):
finds include slags, bronze filings, various pigments.
750
Listing of the foundries above n. 747. The exception of the archaic foundry near the Hephaisteion
dates from a time when the west side of the Agora was hardly built over yet. For considerations of
178
workshops for paint, glass and gilding would also be handy.751 Furthermore, the location of
workshops may have been related to their main function: those near the Akropolis would
have focused increasingly on the manufacture of votives, while those near the city walls may
have specialised in sepulchral monuments.752
The evidence discussed in the previous section has shown that of the sculptors in
Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries, only Endoios and Philergos signed both votives and
gravestones. Since they worked together at least once, this seems to be the only sculpture
workshop which was demonstrably active in both areas.753 Is the conclusion therefore that
workshops were usually specialised in votives or in gravestones? The archaeological evidence
does not confirm this, because too few unfinished pieces were found in the excavated
workshops, and signatures are inconclusive. Only the discovery of more sculptors’ workshops
in Athens could prove a correlation between the location of workshops and a preference for
votives or gravestones. However, the necessity for sculptors to travel for commissions in the
archaic period, corroborated by the lack of evidence for long-term sculpture manufacture in
one place, makes it unlikely that sculptors would limit themselves to one function or genre.
The years of the Akropolis programme are, of course, a different matter. Afterwards, the
preserved workshops testify to greater stability in the trade, and to residential sculptors in
Athens. In the later classical period, and perhaps effectuated by potential site-related
specialisation, the trade may slowly have turned to stock instead of working on the basis of
individual commissions.754
Marble workshops in Athens appear in a pattern similar to that of bronze foundries:
very scarce or no examples from the archaic period, but rising numbers in the fifth century.
The locations of both are determined by practicalities of production and transport, such as
the supply of materials, the presence of water, possibilities of transport for the finished
751
Chatzedemetriou 2005, 87; Palagia 2006, 249-50, 261.
752
Ridgway 1993, 292-3. Stewart 1990, 33 proposes that the marble workshops in the industrial
area after the Akropolis building projects survived on gravestone production. Yet the district is
closer to the Akropolis than to any cemetery, e.g. at the Piraeus or Melite gates, and all unfinished
sculptures found in the area looked to be votive rather than funerary (above n. 713). Some
finished gravestones were used as covers of drains or in containment walls (Young 1951, 155-6),
but where these were made is unclear. See also Randall 1953, 206.
753
Above p. 155-6 and 165.
754
In the fifth century there are no clear indications of stock-based marble trade as yet. Oakley
2004, 216-7 does suggest the existence of stock-based sculpture trade (in comparison with that
of lekythoi). Major works kept on being commissioned individually in later times (e.g. by
hellenistic royal patrons). Cf. below, n. 812.
179
products, and easy access for potential customers. Moreover, towards the end of the fifth
century, the preserved debris in the various excavated marble workshops starts to increase
(thus becoming more recognisable in the archaeological record than in the archaic period)
thanks to longer periods of single-purpose use: carving marble. While before the final
quarter of the sixth century, the lack of evidence for workshops may underline the transient
nature of the trade, by the end of the fifth century sculptors had set up shop and household
in good locations both from a professional and residential point of view.
5
T HE
WORKINGS OF TECH NE
Sculptors were not alone in the art world of Athenian sculpture. Other craftsmen and traders
were active in the transport and delivery of stone, but also in later stages of the manufacture
of sculpture, some of these supporting trades were the domain of craftsmen who were
trained in entirely different crafts than marble working. These people are the support
personnel of the art world of Athenian sculpture. Since they would hardly sign the
monuments that they had painted or produced the dowels for, it is difficult to trace them in
the epigraphic record; but archaeological evidence may offer glimpses of their work.
The Residential-Industrial District west of the Areopagos (map 15) illustrates this
cooperation within the ancient sculpture world. In the previous section, evidence of both
marble working proper and crafts other than sculpture have been presented. The
combination of specialisations at which these remains point fits the model of art worlds
particularly well. Two workshops in the area illustrate the possible activities of the support
personnel. First is house D (maps 17a-b), which was likely to have been a smithy around the
turn of the fifth to the fourth century.755 The chippings characteristic of marble working were
found in its courtyard.756 The location of the workshop and the remains found in it suggest
755
Young 1951 (217-23) describes slugs found in the courtyard, in iron and bronze. The hearth
showed traces of long periods of exposure to very high temperatures. Nevett 1995 discusses
residential aspects of house D.
756
Young 1951, 222: the quantity is such that Young proposes carving activities. The hearth was
used for metal-working in the third period of the house, long after the nearby drain was built in
the early fourth century; but the slugs cam from a layer dating to the house’s second period, i.e.
the early fourth century BC.
180
towards what may be called a support-workshop: this means that the smith specialised in,
for example, clamps and other metal fittings necessary for fastening sculpture onto pedestals
and dowelling blocks in construction. A reason why this activity was only taken up in the
fourth century BC could be that the workshops in the area had started working for
themselves after the completion of the Akropolis building projects, depriving them of the onsite (or perhaps more likely, nearly on-site) smithies which had provided the many dowels
and other parts for those buildings serially.757
A second possible support-workshop is house F, which was surrounded by marble
workshops (houses G and H, and the Poros building; only house E to the south shows no
signs of marble-working).758 The fill under the floor and in the tank outside the north wall of
house F contained pigments and bone remains, and the tank furthermore contained a glasslike substance. The straight parts of the bones were most likely used for making styli and
other tools, like the one found in the house of Mikion and Menon (pl. 23c); they can also have
been used to make glue or paint.
For the latter, two types of pigments were used in antiquity: minerals and organic
material.759 Both need an elaborate process of preparation before paint usable on marble can
be produced. First, the minerals must be pulverised to a specific degree: if the powder is too
fine, many pigments will refract the light in such a way that the colour will look sallow.760 In
order to achieve the intense brightness which can, in exceptional cases, still be observed on
ancient sculpture to this day, the pigment powder needs to be floated. This serves to remove
waste, and more importantly, to divide the purified pigment by grain size.761 The pigment is
put in casein solution in relatively small quantities at a time. After a while, little pieces of dirt,
757
As has been argued elsewhere, the specialisation involved in temple building was high in ancient
Greece –uncharacteristically so, according to some. Cf. above p. 180.
758
Young 1951, 177 (Poros building: M. Crosby); 235-6 (House G); 229 (House H).
759
For an overview of pigments, see Brinkmann 2005. Organic pigments were among other sources
derived from lichen, madder and oysters (for an overview see H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds.
(1998) Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, s.v. Farben); cf. Schneider 1992, 129. In Parlama
and Tampolidis 2000, p. 34, P. Kalligas describes a kiln of Hellenistic date from the excavations
of the Akropolis metro station, in which earth was burnt to make red pigments. Exotic
provenances of pigments were established in the paint with which a marble basin in the Getty
Museum was decorated (the scene showing Thetis bring armour to Achilles), dated to the late
fourth century: see Wallert 1995.
760
Price 2005, 25-6.
761
Ibid. 26-7.
181
and then the finer grains of the pigment will float to the surface. This is then drained, and the
process is repeated until heaps of pigment of different grain sizes remain.
House F and its installations have never been explained satisfactorily; yet the material
presented in the previous section may suggest that it was in fact the shop of a pigment
salesman, a pharmakotribes.762 Although no traces of colour were evidently found by the
excavators, floating pigments would be nowhere near as effective in leaving behind colour
stains as deliberate application of paint or dye would, for example in dying cloth. Moreover,
in cases where applied colours have survived to this day and are visible to the naked eye, they
have not been exposed to open air for long periods of time, as happened with the troughs of
house F.763 The size of the vats, the small containers in the north-west and south-west
corners of the room, the water supply and the outlet near the north wall all make this a wellequipped place for floating. The presence of lumps of pigment in the well north of the house
and under the house suggests this craft too, though the latter layers are older.764 That no
grinder or mixing bowls for paint were found makes sense, since they would have been part
of the movable inventory of the workshop: when the pharmakotribes left, he took such
implements with him.
Colourful paint on their sculpture was of utmost importance to the ancient Greeks.765
Extensive research in this field over the last decades has proven that ancient sculptures were
covered in paint, especially in the archaic and early-classical periods. Only in few places was
the marble visible, and the painted rendering of, for example, embroidered dresses or
drapery was luxurious (pls. 24a-d).766 None of the Agora workshops in which pigments were
762
D. 48: 12.5, 13.3, 14.2. In Demosthenes’ description, slaves do the grinding. The emphasis would
originally have been on organic pigments, other types of ingredients for paint would very likely
have been sold in the same shop. Cf. LSJ s.v. farmakotri/bhj. It is interesting that there is a word
which is used by Plutarch (Mor. 436b.7) for ‘the grinding of botanical pigments’: suntri/bein.
Other words for dye-sellers, referring to specific colours, are e.g. chromatopoles, krokopoles
(saffran, red or yellow) and porphyropoles (purple or burgundy). I am grateful to dr. Angelos
Chaniotis and dr. Mark Janse for bringing these terms to my attention. For terminology of colours
in general, Crescenzo 2006; Maugan-Chemin 2006.
763
No mention is made of an investigation of the vats with UV light, which has over recent decades
become a more common practice in ancient colour research.
764
See above p. 172.
765
Even faces of bronze statues would be inlaid with other metals for a colourful effect (e.g.
Descamps-Lequime 2006; Muller-Dufeu 2006).
766
E.g. Richter SSG 148-58; Ridgway 1987; Brinkmann and Koch-Brinkmann 2003; Brinkmann et al.
2004; Brinkmann and Brijder 2005; Hemelrijk 2004, 199-209. See also Moormann 1988, 71-4 for
the evidence on Roman wall-paintings on the colouration of sculpture.
182
found dates from the archaic period.767 Of course, this corresponds with the pattern of the
marble workshops, which also lacked fixed abodes until the fifth century. The complexity of
the preparation of paint it is impossible that painters prepared their own materials. They
could have got certain pigments, like ochre and some reds, from Attika proper; other parts of
Greece are rich in suitable minerals as well.768 However, quite a few pigments had to be
imported from other parts of the Mediterranean or even further away, so that painters had to
be ardent travellers if they were to provide their own colours.769
Several ancient methods of producing paint for wall-painting – the closest parallel for
the colouring of sculpture - are known, using various bases: egg or casein for tempera, or
hot wax and some olive oil for ganosis, i.e. encaustic painting.770 Both techniques have been
attested as early as the fifth century.771 A less well-known painting technique used paints
based on bone powder, calcium phosphate, and was long thought not to have been used
before the Middle Ages. However, wall-paintings in a tomb in Vergina in Macedonia show
that it was known as early as the fourth century.772
A hydria from the Vatican Museum shows a painter who is decorating a gravestone
with an astragal or kymation in such a technique (pl. 25a), not unlike one depicted on a
lekythos in the National Museum in Athens (pl. 25c).773 A fourth-century vase painting (pl.
767
Caley 1945; cf. Shear 1982, 45 for traces of pigments from a fourth-century workshop context
near the Stoa Poikile.
768
Brécoulaki and Perdikatsis 2000, 193; Caley 1945, 155; on p. 153-4 he lists five cases of bulk
pigments found in sixth or fifth-century context, most of which were in small vessels which
looked like they had been used for mixing. Two were found in the western half of the area of the
later Middle Stoa, while one came from section B’, near the house of Mikion and Menon. Further
specification was impossible, because only one of the containers was published (in Caley’s article:
AMP 9516).
769
The provenance and composition of pigments is discussed by e.g. Caley 1945, 155; Wallert 1995;
Brécoulaki and Perdikatsis 2000; Brinkmann et al. 2004, 239-41.
770
For the effect of this on coloured sculpture in wall-paintings see Moormann 1988, 71.
771
Richter SSG, 153-6; Brinkmann et al. 2004, 241; Palagia 2006, 260-1. Ganosis is attested on
some of the Parthenon figures and in Temple E at Selinunte; but contrary to Palagia’s contention
that the skin of figures was left unpainted, the veiled Hera from the metope of the latter temple
was given a lucid complexion by means of a wax-polish to which some light pigments were added
(Brinkmann et al. 2004, 242 fig. 1). That stucco was sometimes provided as a base for paint on
coarser stone types can be seen in the stele KM P 1132, cat. G 75; a similar layer may have
covered the poros stele KM P 1133, cat. G 96.
772
On the throne in the mural of the Tomb of Eurydice: Brécoulaki and Perdikatsis 2000, 203. The
chemical composition is Ca3(Po4)2. For the technique: D.V. Thompson, The Materials and
Techniques of Medieval Painting, 1936, 94-5.
773
Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, inv. 14964: Beazley ARF, 47.2; Chatzedemetriou 2005, 87-9, 90.
183
25b), and possibly a sixth-century relief from the Akropolis, show assistants heating wax in a
brazier, while the master painters work on the statues.774 The statue in the vase painting is
finished: it stands on the spot in the sanctuary where it is to remain, on a pedestal with a
separate support for the club.775 If this picture reflects a common situation, statues were set
up before completion, that is, before they were painted.
It is quite likely that for major building projects such as the late-archaic temple of
Athena (for example, the three-headed monster on the ‘Blue-beard Pediment’) or the
Periklean building programme, for which obviously large amounts of pigments and paints
were needed, specialised workshops were set up near the Akropolis. The few pigment finds
from datable contexts around the Akropolis date either to the time before the Persian wars or
to the later part of the fifth century.776 This may be coincidental: after all, private sculpture,
as well as terracottas and wall-paintings, needed paint too, and there must have been ample
work for the craftsmen who painted sculpted figures or figurines in all periods, with or
without large-scale construction.
The rich and delicate decoration on Greek sculpture from the archaic period is,
moreover, beyond amateurism.777 Phrasikleia’s ambitious drapery and the paintwork on other
archaic statues from Athens show that those who incised or painted the patterns on these
sculptures had keenly observed the behaviour of decorative bands such as meanders in
draped cloth (pls. 24b-c).778 The ornamental richness of the archaic period disappeared in
the fifth century for a more tranquil colouring. Archaic painting on sculpture had provided a
one-on-one rendering of the sculpted objects; but in the fifth century, this changed to a
774
Akr. 3075, cat. V 216 dates to the middle of the sixth century, which is early for encaustic
painting. It is therefore uncertain whether this interpretation is correct (Chatzedemetriou 2005,
178). Cf. AMA 312-3 no. 431, fig. 357. NYMM 50.11.4 in Robertson, 1975, 485 pl. 152a;
Chatzedemetriou 2005, 90; Palagia 2006, 255. According to Chatzedemetriou, the scene should
be interpreted as taking place indoors, because of the presence of a phiale hung from the wall
and the column to the left of the scene.
775
Chatzedemetriou 2005, 87. She also points out that Herakles himself is standing behind the
painter as a sign that this scene is set in the sanctuary.
776
See above p. 172 and n. 768 respectively.
777
E.g. Brinkmann 2005, 93-119 (on the rich colours of the Aphaia temple on Aegina); also Richter
SSG, 156.
778
Hemelrijk 2004, 203 rightly points out that some of the folds are realistically impossible,
although artistically wonderful. Examples on the Akropolis and from funerary contexts show high
technical standards of finish in stone and paint of folds, though not always realism: e.g. Akr. 674,
cat. V 12 or KM P 1051, cat. G 22 (pl. 15b).
184
more pictorial approach. For example, on the himatia of the figures in fifth-century reliefs,
the channels between the folds were painted a darker shade of the colour used for the rest of
the drapery (pl. 25d).779 This manner of painting sculpture in the fifth century, enhancing the
modelling of the surface, evidently resembled the style of the later wall-painter Nikias, who
also painted the works of Praxiteles in the fourth century.780
If it were not for the intricacy of the painting on some archaic statues, the suggestion
that archaic sculptors painted their work themselves would be tempting. In fact, as was
suggested above, the base for Nelon son of Nelonides may be a case of the sculptor Endoios
taking up the brush.781 Yet the painting on archaic sculpture is a rendition of the sculpted
object, and usually accurately follows the behaviour that the real surface would. Whether
many sculptors had the knack for such complex paintwork is doubtful.782 On the other hand,
the incisions which guided the painter on intricate archaic sculptures like, for example, the
dresses of Phrasikleia or the Beautiful kore (pl. 2c), suggest the sculptor’s rather than the
painter’s hand: not only is it more likely that the incision of guidelines in the marble was
done by the sculptor, but the understanding of the sculpted form which it reflects may suit
him more than the painter. Painting in general, in the sixth century and especially in the latearchaic period, must have been performed to very high standards, if vase paintings are any
indication; and so the spatial insight of painters may well have matched that of sculptors.
Sculpture from the fifth and fourth centuries shows no more complicated paintwork
than before. With regard to patterning, classical painting is of a different nature, requiring
insight in shades and light-and-dark effects rather than the behaviour of patterned cloth.
Despite this, it is likely that in the classical period, specialist sculpture painters existed,
779
Koch-Brinkmann and Posamentir 2005, 151-59. Dr. Christina Vlassopoulou of the Akropolis
Museum, who was one of the developers of a non-invasive cleaning method using salt water and
exposure to lasers and bringing to light several small spots of colour from under the soot on the
Parthenon frieze, tells me that there, too, the painting was pictorial rather than object-focused. I
am greatly indebted to her and her wonderful staff for allowing me to see the cleaning process in
action in the fall of 2005.
780
Plin. HN 35.133; also APF, 286 no. 8334; see also Lauter 1980, 530; Palagia 2006, 261, 275 n.
84. Cf. p. 192.
781
Endoios. Cf. Keesling 1999, 511, 527. The fourth-century painter Euphranor also sculpted and
wrote treatises on colour and symmetria (Plin. HN 35.128; Stewart 1990, 64; Pollitt 1995, 20).
There is no reason why such versatility would have occurred in the fourth century, but not in the
sixth. Above p. 154.
782
Having done such painting herself, dr. Ulrike Koch-Brinkmann (pers. comm.) concludes that it in
her opinion, must have been a specialised job.
185
although they may have seen it as a job on the side of wall-painting. Since so little of the
latter is preserved, the only helpful material for comparison are vases. An interesting
connection with pottery lies in the potential personal relations between craftsmen of various
kinds, which would make co-operation more likely.783
Evidence of the painted statuary of Athens appears to confirm the interpretation of
the workshops in the Residential-Industrial District outlined earlier. Some of the materials
needed for painting the sculpture produced in the area might be among the contents of
house F: the bones, pigments and the glassy granular substance found in the tank north of
this workshop, which contained quartz, sand and high levels of calcium, magnesium and
phosphorus.784 Chemical analysis of this material has established that the composition
excludes the use of a smelter, and that bones, ground to a powder, are the most likely source
for the substances found in this house.785
Material of a similar texture was found in the eastern part of the South square of the
Agora in a Roman context, where sand and water were used to saw marble slabs.786 Marble
powder was a by-product of the sawing; mixed with the water which was used to cool the
sawing process, it became a hard, conglomerate mass. If house F produced bone tools,
quartz powder may have been used to smooth them with, resulting in a mix of bone and
quartz. However, since a chemical reaction seems to have taken place between the bone
powder and the quartz, it is more likely that the mixing was done on purpose. If so, the
glassy substance is production waste, and the workshop’s main product may in that case
have been glass inlays.787 The third possibility, that of the manufacture of paint and glue, is
suggested by the combination of bone and pigments.788 These options need not be mutually
exclusive. House F may well have been a workshop for several trades.
783
For example Antenor (above p. 158) was possibly the son of the painter Eumares, while
Euthymides signed sometimes as the son of Pollias (cf. above p. 153). See also Webster 1972,
299-300; contra Stissi 2002, 152. More on this topic below, p. 190.
784
Young 1951, 233-4 n. 114.
785
Paint based on ground bones with high calcium and phosphorus levels was attested in one
instance from an ancient context (see above n. 772); no literary evidence remains.
786
Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 188.
787
This is less probable here, since the use of a smelter is unlikely. Cf. Richter SSG, 147; Ridgway
1969, 106; Lapatin 2001, 178-88. Palagia 2006, 123, 152 n. 38 (lit.) describes tools and
materials from the workshop of Pheidias in Olympia, used for making precious stone and glass
inlays for the throne of the master’s Zeus.
788
See above n. 785.
186
A possible combination of bone-working and the production of paint and glass in house F
offers an interesting take on the bone stylus whose inscription provided a name for the house
of Mikion and Menon (pl. 23c). It is perhaps less likely that the sculptor Mikion, who after all
had a house and workshop on a prime location, would have made his own styli. It is even
more far-fetched that he would then have put a fecit inscription on it. Only if he were a bone
cutter (not a chryselephantine sculptor, but a stylus maker) as well as a sculptor in marble
would that be plausible. However, the excavators of neither the house of Mikion and Menon,
nor of the adjacent wells report any signs of bone working.789 Furthermore, Mikion’s name is
absent from literary and epigraphic records of his supposed lifetime in the first half of the
fifth century.790 Thus, it is possible that the sculptor of the house which was to become
Menon’s house, was not Mikion at all. Mikion made styli and other bone tools for a living, and
put his name on his products so that his clients would not forget him. Whether he worked
nearby in house F in the industrial district must be left to imagination.
If the first sculptor working in Menon’s house bought his styli from Mikion’s place,
he may have got other supplies from specialists, too. This suggestion of a division of labour
in sculpture-supporting crafts is all the more likely at a time when sculptors travelled less.
They had little or no chance of obtaining all the materials for the work themselves: some
pigments, sanding powder or other basic necessities came from faraway sources.791
Interestingly, the Parthenon building accounts list polishing as the second most expensive
part of the production of architectural sculpture and other marble elements of the building:
only transport is more expensive, while both quarrying (including the cost of the marble) and
carving the figures are quite a lot cheaper.792 Admittedly, the surfaces in need of polishing
789
Shear 1969, Miller 1974.
790
The argument is admittedly ex silentio. A Mikon, sculptor from Athens, signed a victor’s base in
Olympia (IG I3 1475, dated 472 BC.) for Kallias son of Didymios, also of Athens. The difference in
the name is significant. Two Mikions, probably both metics, feature in the Erechtheion accounts in
the late fifth century, considerably after the Mikion of the stylus (IG I3 475, ln. 71, 246-65; cf.
Broneer 1933, 379; Randall 1953, 200, 206). One or both could be grandsons of the Mikion in
Olympia, but again, the difference in name is problematic. One lived in Melite, the other in
Kollytos, both close to the Areopagus valley (Young 1951, 140-2). They did carpentry and odd
jobs for daily wages and neither of them were apparently sculptors.
791
An interesting array of provenances of pigments used on a polychrome lekanis is described by
Wallert 1995.
792
Stanier 1951, 69, 73.
187
for such a building are large; but it is likely that the long hours of labour which went into this
added considerably to the price.793
Thus far, the activities in the Residential-Industrial district show a variety of craft
specialisations, which may nonetheless all be supportive to the sculpture art world.
Increasing horizontal specialisation in supporting crafts must have occurred within sculpture
workshops too.794 Analogies with other crafts suggest that among those who worked at a
workshop, the tasks would be divided according to criteria such as seniority, capability and
the craftsmen’s own preferences.795 An example of specialisation within a workshop could be
in carving certain genres: in the building accounts of the Erechtheion, different sculptors
perform such jobs as fluting or carving the ceiling coffers, or the figurative sculpture.796 In
particular phases of the work, such as preparation or finish, the sculptors of a workshop who
had not done the carving of a piece might join in, or several sculptors might work on various
phases of one architectural element.797 Sculptors and masons rarely overlap in the records
and architectural and figurative workshops seem to have been separate entities. Considering
the how many columns, walls, bases, lintels and so forth Athens needed at the time, such
focus is unsurprising.
Organisation-wise, ancient sculpture workshops are generally thought of as simple
affairs, with a master sculptor and perhaps one or two assistants, apprentices or slaves; in
the former case, they could have been sons of the sculptor.798 The sculpting families of
Archermos, Myron, and later Praxiteles, are examples of the latter situation.799 Building
793
Polishing is extremely time-consuming. The contractors, masons and sculptors would have sold
themselves short if they had not incorporated this into their estimates.
794
Evidence for labour organisation in ancient workshops is scarce and circumstantial: e.g. the
Foundry Cup (Berl. Staatl. Mus. F 2294: bronze casting): Himmelmann1994, 7-8; Mattusch 1996,
18. Cf. n. 795.
795
E.g. between potters and painters, but even among the painters themselves, there would be
specialisation: Webster 1944, 23; Scheibler 1983, 110, 116-7; Stissi 2002, 86-92, 124-44.
796
Randall 1953, 206-7. Cf. also the Asklepieion temple accounts from Epidauros, e.g. IG IV2 102.
797
Randall ibid.; e.g. IG I3 475 (Erechtheion). Cf. Jockey 2000 (Hellenistic); Rockwell 2008 (Roman).
798
This in contrast with bronze workshops whose production in some cases indicates impressive size
and complexity: e.g. Pythagoras of Rhegion whose workshop produced four statues for victors of
the 484 Olympic Games (although not all commissioned at the same time): see Smith 2007, 102.
799
Mark 1995, 25; Stewart 1990, 243-4 (Archermos and his family), 254-7, 283 (Myron and Lykios),
277-81 (the family of Praxiteles). Also Künstlerlexikon II, 304-19; Muller-Dufeu 2002, 123-7 nos.
337-47 (Archermos and family), 250-1, 386-9 (Myron and Lykios); for the latter also Corsa 2004,
12-39, and passim for Praxiteles and his family (Muller-Dufeu 2002, 480-529, 539-43, for his
sons: 826-7, 920-1); also above, p. 158 and 163.
188
accounts confirm that families worked on projects together, e.g. on the fluting of columns in
the Erechtheion records.800 And surely, a man and his son could have run a sculpture
workshop, especially if younger children or slaves were available for simpler but timeconsuming work such as polishing, so that the master and his advanced apprentices could
concentrate on carving.801 However, the images of sculpture workshops seldom show more
than one figure working on a statue simultaneously.802 Then again, sculpture workshops are
rarely depicted, and in the few existing cases the statue fills much of the picture.
Nonetheless, sculptors-to-be needed to be trained, in Athens as elsewhere, by
experienced sculptors, and there must have been a rudimentary programme which they were
submitted to.803 Some unfinished pieces from excavations may well have been for training.
Sculpted body parts can of course be dedications, but they can also be attempts by sculpture
apprentices.804 It has been argued that early archaic carving methods were so straightforward
that they were easily learned:805 the outlines of the statue were drawn on the sides of the
block, after it was just a matter of achieving the proper depth – looking at early statues from
800
IG I3 476, lines 305-14 list Laossos of Alopeke and his sons Karios and Parmenides, and
Phalakros of Paiania with his sons Thargelios, Philorgos and Gerys. In both these cases, another
person, seemingly no relation although one of them was from the same deme as the master
sculptor, is mentioned as a co-worker: in the former Philon of Erchia in the second Philostratos of
Paiania. Furthermore, one Ikaros, presumably a slave, was apparently part of the workshop of
Laossos. Further examples in lines 315-26. Cf. below n. 815.
801
Adam 1966, 78-9; Fuchs and Floren 1987, 9-11; Ridgway ASGS, 422-7.
802
Chatzedemetriou 2005, 32-5 pls. G1-8, 85-90. She argues that many examples of images of
marble workshops, e.g. the figure to the right-hand side of Athena on the Foundry cup (Berlin St.
Mus. F 2294, ARV 400 no. 1), as well as the herm being carved in its tondo are more likely cases
of wood carving, based on the tools which are used. She contends that the way in which the
sculptor holds the herm indicates it is of wood rather than of heavy stone. While this true, the
demands of the composition could have led the painter to impinge on reality. The manufacture of
stone sculptures is only certainly depicted on Greek vases in two cases, both while being painted.
See above ns. 773-774.
803
Mark 1995, 25; Jockey 2000, 82.
804
From the Agora are an unfinished head of a man, AM S 1185, cat. G 15, pl. 23e, from an
undisturbed ealry fill; cat. G 101, KM P 1471 is part of an arm; cat. G 102, KM 1512 part of a foot
on a plinth, both from the Kerameikos The two-sided pieces of parts of feet (carved to per piece
of stone) and some other fragments from Aphrodisias (Van Voorhis 1998) are good examples, but
they date from late-Roman times. They show that students were given a model and then assigned
to try and copy it manually, creating two feet from a limited mass of stone. In most cases,
polishing and finish had not been done (ibid. 181-2).
805
Hurwit 1985, 197.
189
the side will demonstrate the point.806 This is, of course, a simplification: it took much
experience and knowledge to get it right even with strict guidelines for proportions. The
initial effort of learning the craft must have been considerable; the subsequent development
and its speed are remarkable.807
In all likelihood, family ties were important in continuing workshops, but this view
should not be idealised. In cases like the one of Myron and his son Lykios, the craft was
passed on from one generation to the other. However, Antenor’s father Eumares was a
painter, so not all sons followed in their fathers’ footsteps.808 If a master sculptor had no
sons willing to succeed him, or if he had no sons at all, he could take on other men willing to
learn the craft (or even adopt them), or if he could afford it, he could buy a slave.809 However,
large numbers of co-workers, whether free or slaves, were unpractical in the small rooms and
courtyards of most Athenian workshops.810 Life-size and more than life-size sculpture from
the fifth century, for example the Agora goddess,811 would only leave enough space for
perhaps one other project, even in the courtyards of the largest workshops. If preparatory
work was being done in the same space simultaneously, she would have left no room at
all.812 Undoubtedly, this also applied to large pieces from the archaic period, when
806
Ibid.; see also among other authors Ridgway 1969, 98; Guralnick 1982; Martini 1990, 123-4;
Stewart 1990, 34; Boardman GSAP, 20-1; Rockwell 2008, 95-110 (for Roman Aphrodisias).
807
The knack of imagining correctly what the carving on one side will do with the two adjoining sides
is hard to acquire (pers. comm. of the sculptor Mark Luscombe, Wemeldinge, The Netherlands).
808
Cat. B 197. See also Viviers 1995, 213-4; Keesling 1999, 527 also lists Euthymides’ signature as
son of Polias or Pollias, who may be the archaic sculptor (above p. 153).
809
The nature of apprenticeship is difficult to establish in the sixth and fifth centuries: Burford 1972,
89 mentions a rare apprentice contract, but it is from a much later period.
810
The courtyards in which much of the carving went on in a marble workshop at Aphrodisias in Asia
Minor were quite spacious (Voorhis 1998; cf. also Rockwell 1991). In Athens, house G had a
courtyard of c. 6.2 m. in length and slightly less width; the courtyard of house D was c. 20.6 m2.
The odd-shaped courtyard of the house of (Mikion and) Menon was approximately 16.2 m2. Of
similar dimensions are the workshops in the Commercial Building outside the north-west corner
of the Stoa Poikile (above n. 749) and shops on the east side of the Agora (Shear 1975, 346).
811
AM S 1882, cat. V 255.
812
Especially ‘with chips flying about’: Rockwell 2008, especially 94-5 (in a Roman context,
regarding room for clay models), and 109-10. A similar point is explored for a Hellenistic
workshop on Delos by Jockey (2000, 82 and passim): the large numbers of statuettes of
Aphrodite, all more or less halfway to completion (Jockey’s stage 2 out of 3: carved until just
before final details and polishing) shows that in that workshop, a kind of production line was set
up for which each employee executed the stage of manufacture at which he was best. In this way,
the Delian workshop could make the most of its staff, which probably had only partly finished
their training, while at the same time giving serious competition to coroplasts’ workshops. Earlier
190
monumental free-standing sculpture was more numerous then in the fifth century BC: one
only has to think of the early kouroi or the Antenor kore.813
For a workshop whose master sculptor took on monumental commissions, a number
of four to a maximum of eight people would have been the most which could be
accommodated, even if roofed spaces are included. Naturally, many workshops would have
had such large pieces ordered only rarely. Work on smaller pieces requires much less space,
and more people can work on them at the same time. Yet even then, if a sculptor wanted to
build up stock, he needed an extra room for storage and display of his works, but more
importantly, he needed it to keep the work floor from becoming overly cluttered.814
In the later fifth century, the records of the Erechtheion attest to workshops with
similar numbers of workmen: commissions for fluting column drums ‘at the altar of Dione’
were given to groups of five to seven men.815 The interpretation of this part of the accounts
has been contested. Many of the names are in genitive, which was first thought to mean they
were patronymics.816 However, others have pointed out that that would require some of the
Erechtheion craftsmen to have fathered five sons which were all old enough to help with the
difficult work of fluting columns, but less than eighteen years of age (since otherwise their
father’s name would not have been used, but a demotic); and all would have to be sufficiently
standardisation may have come from so-called Musterbücher (Meyer 1989, 264) or cahiers de
modèles (Baumer 2000) through which the design of major works of sculpture were transferred
onto reliefs. According to Strocka (1979), workshops began a similar practice of copying their
own compositions in reliefs as early as late-archaic times. This tendency culminated in the fourth
century BC in ready-made gravestones, only to be finished with faces and details required by
clients (cf. Schmaltz 2001, 51). Design and execution of carving are not main subjects here; see
thorough analyses by Blümel (1941); Adam (1966); Rockwell 2008, 95-111 (copying as well as
carving a new design in Roman Aphrodisias).
813
Akr. 681, cat. V 11; B 197 (pl. 19b). This problem of archaic sculptures, which are more often of
large proportions than fifth-century sculpture in Athens, coincides with the absence of built
workshops from the former period, which suggests that convenient open-air locations were
indeed preferred.
814
In the house of (Mikion and) Menon, for example in room 4 in the earlier phase. The lack of space
for carving and dressing the stone for the Periklean building programme must have been done
largely elsewhere than on the Akropolis (Ashmole 1972, 107), particularly considering the fact
that building ramps etc. were in place all through the construction and would have made the top
of the hill even less workable. It is often surmised that sculptors did not carry stock until much
later (Stewart 1990, 63) but Lauter 1980, passim, convincingly argues that Praxiteles occasionally
worked for himself, partly because he could afford it. Cf. previous note.
815
IG I3 476, 305-26 (see above n. 800).
816
Caskey 1928, passim; also Camp 2001, 97-9.
191
experienced for this work so as to receive equal pay.817 This is indeed unlikely, and cautious
remarks that the genitive might indicate the men’s dependence on the workshop owner, and
that they are therefore probably slaves, may well be correct.818 Approximate estimates of
labourers from the Erechtheion accounts are about a fifth slaves, approximately a quarter
free citizens, and about two-fifths of free non-Athenian residents.819
High numbers of non-citizens among the craftsmen might be a result of the Sicilian
expedition of 415-412 BC, which left so many Athenian men in captivity or dead that skilled
men from abroad must have been more welcome than at other times.820 Most of these metic
craftsmen lived in the demes of Kollytos and Melite, south-west and west of the Akropolis
respectively (map 1), or in Alopeke outside the city.821 The Street of the Marble Workers is
usually presumed to have been in the deme Melite.822 It is likely that non-Athenians, from
metics to slaves, were among its inhabitants. Of course, slave labour in sculpture in the fifth
century and later need not interfere with the notion of workshops as family businesses. The
famous sculpture dynasty of Praxiteles began its remarkable career in the early fourth
century and lasted for three generations: most likely, they employed slaves as well.823
In the Erechtheion accounts, master sculptors and each of their collaborators are
individually mentioned. Fourth-century building contracts show a different practice: one
master sculptor is put under contract for work which is obviously too much for one person.
The sculptor, whether the same man as the workshop owner or not, is expected to do the job
with his associates or slaves, and divide the wages amongst them. At the same time,
guarantors for the work are named in the contract more and more frequently.824 Another
change in contracts is the object of payment. The sculptors of the Erechtheion frieze earned
sixty drachmai for each male or female figure, while a child’s brought in thirty. In these fifthcentury accounts, prices for sculpture had been per figure.825 Yet in fourth-century
817
Randall 1953, 200; also Lauter 1974, 12-3.
818
Lauter ibid.
819
Randall 1953, 201-3.
820
Randall 1953, 203. For the welcome foreign craftsmen received at this time, see below p. 193.
821
Young 1951, 140-2. One workman was stated to be from the deme Kerameis (Randall 1953, 204).
822
Young 1951, 271. For the boundaries of Melite and Kollytos, see Lalonde 2006.
823
Lauter 1980; Mark 1995, 29. Another example is one of the Erechtheion sculptors, Iasos of
Kollytos, who performed a liturgy in 387/6 (APF 252; Stewart 1990, 67). Cf. below p. 195.
824
Burford 1969, 112; Lauter 1974, 14. See above, p. 127.
825
For example, the sculptor Praxias living in Melite was paid 120 drachmai for a horse and his rider
who is leading him IG I3 476, lines 161-4; also Loomis 1998, 117-18. He also describes the
192
Epidauros, the contractors got a bulk price for the pedimental figures of the Asklepios
temple. They were responsible for delivery on time but they apparently hired others to do the
carving, so they may not have been sculptors themselves.826
None of these sources provide any comprehensive evidence on the daily wages from
which the income of those working for private patrons could be deduced. Sculptors’ wages
are mostly believed to have been similar those of other labourers, underpinning their low
status and the presumed lack of distinction between, for example, a sculptor and a joiner, or
a sculptor and a fuller.827 The much-quoted figure adhering to this lowliness is one drachma
a day, the daily wage of every craftsman working on the Erechtheion in the late fifth
century.828 This was similar pay to what soldiers earned at the time, at least until the Sicilian
expedition.829 Considering the importance of that venture and of the soldiers of Athens in
general during the Peloponnesian war, such wages may not have been so bad.
Prices of gravestones have been the subject of much study over recent years: one
conclusion of this has been that fifth-century gravestones were really not a luxury for the
happy few.830 The main source for sculpture prices are from litigation: funerary arrangements
are quite often mentioned in speeches, mostly those from the fourth century. The costs are,
however, generally in bulk: burial, the necessary rituals, digging the grave and having a
monument made and set up are not budgeted separately, leaving the cost of each component
unclear. Lysias describes one Diodotus as having spent less than the 5000 drachmai set aside
for his brother’s funeral.831 Even with all funerary costs included in this figure, this sum
seems outrageously high.832
problems adhering to establishing the wages of the Parthenon sculptors (116-7): the lump sum of
payment for sculpture in the year 434/3 cannot be properly divided because the number of
sculptors and the number of their working days are both unknown. For example, their numbers
have been estimated as widely divergent as 20-25 and 81-82, both for a period of three hundred
days’ work.
826
Burford 1969, 113-5. A partial exception to the rule that by the fourth century, labour was hired
through a contractor, is the mid-fourth century construction in Eleusis recorded in IG II2 1665-85.
827
Himmelmann 1979, 139-40; Stewart 1990, 66; Loomis 1998, 116-7 n. 37.
828
Loomis 1998, 34-6; the list of sources follows in 36-61.
829
After 412, the soldiers’ wage fell dramatically to c. 3 obols per day (Loomis 1998, 56-7; cf. 234).
830
Earlier tradition had considered gravestones a commodity for the elite. Oliver 2000, 59-60;
Nielsen et al. 1989, 412 and passim. Contra Hurwit 1985, 198.
831
Lys. 32.21.
832
Morris 1992, 138 remarks that Lysias’ speech seems to indicate no surprise at such a figure
anywhere.
193
However, statues in bronze (which were in all likelihood more expensive than marble)
indicate that these costs must be about right. The monument set up by the Athenians to
celebrate their victory over the Boeotians and the Chalkidians at the end of the sixth century
was a tithe of the ransom collected of at least 700 prisoners: simple calculation suggests a
price of approximately 14.000 drachmai.833 The monument consisted of four horses, a
chariot and a charioteer, all in bronze, which explains such a large sum. At this rate, the
wealth of Praxiteles and some other fourth-century sculptors becomes understandable. The
other end of the spectrum is a simple stele with an inscription: some believe that a modest
monuments like this cost less than twenty drachmai.834 Although the bronzes in most cases
would have been more monumental, some of the classical gravestones are quite extravagant,
and for those examples the differences between the top and the lower end of the market
seem rather steep.
The amount of twenty drachmai for a stele with or without a carved decoration is
derived from the documentary reliefs of ancient Athens, the majority of which dates to the
fourth century. Letter-cutters as specialist craftsmen emerged in Athens in the course of the
sixth and fifth centuries.835 Admittedly, the comparison between documentary reliefs and
grave stelai is hampered by fluctuating prices of the former, and because grave inscriptions
are much shorter than treaties or decrees.836 Moreover, prices of official documents may not
always be the same as those applied for private inscriptions.837 Still, many letter-cutters must
have worked on public as well as private monuments, which makes a comparison interesting.
A fragment of building accounts of the Eleusinian epistatai in 408/7 BC awards 62 drachmai
to the mason ‘…for working, engraving and driving into place’ (e)[la/s]anti, i.e. erecting) the
stele on which the accounts are inscribed.838 Only the part of the procedure which took place
833
ML 28-9, no. 15: IG I3 501, DAA 168 +173. Cf. Hdt. 5.76; calculation by Smith 2007, 101-2. He
reasonably argues that the price of 3000 dr. mentioned by a scholiast on Pindar N. 5.1 (A. B.
Drachmann (1997) Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina, III.89), though possibly derived from the
scholiast’s own experience in Hellenistic times, is not far off the price for a single bronze statue
in the fifth century.
834
Nielsen et al. 1989, 414; Oliver 2000, 76-7 proposes a price between 20 and 40 drachmai.
835
Jeffery 1962; id. LSAG; Tracy 1990. Of course, letter-cutters existed in the sixth century, too, but
they are easier to trace in the classical period, when the record is much more extensive and
includes letter-cutters’ signatures.
836
Oliver 2000, 74; cf. Lawton 1995, 25-6; Loomis 1998, 121-65.
837
Tracy 1990, 227 n. 8.
838
Loomis 1998, 121 no. 1, referring to IG I3 386, lines 165-7.
194
after the stone was delivered to the mason is mentioned. The reward seems generous for the
remaining work, especially when considering that the standard for daily wages, the payment
of soldiers, had come down considerably at the time.839 If one drachma was still the daily
rate, the sculptor would have needed 62 days to carve and inscribe the stele and set it up.
The timing seems generous, even for a long inscription. Whether the Eleusinian record is
based on an estimate of work days or gives a price per piece remains uncertain.
Some of the Erechtheion tradesmen worked in their own field of expertise as well as
doing odd jobs on the same project; both types of labour were presumably paid the same.840
Sculptors, however, could be paid per piece, and this would create a chance at a better wage.
Nonetheless, it is unlikely that they earned considerably more than other craftsmen or
labourers. In the second half of the fourth century, construction workers at Eleusis were paid
according to skill, something that in the Erechtheion accounts did not happen yet.841 On the
other hand, the Erechtheion workers were paid relatively high wages, in view of the drop in
pay levels in other areas of Athenian society after 412, as a result of the developments in the
Peloponnesian war. In sum, prices paid for public sculpture in Athens seem very reasonable
in the fifth century, even – or especially – in times of crisis. If this was the standard of
remuneration, sculptors would have been able to make a decent living. In the fourth century,
the reward for those whose carving excelled rose further. Inflation was rife at the time, and
sculptors’ wages must have been affected. However, Praxiteles’ son Kephisodotos (active in
the same craft) served as a trierarch in 327/6, so some sculptors still earned good money.842
A base relief from the Akropolis to Athena shows a seated craftsman handing over
his earnings to Athena who stands before him.843 It is interesting that this may be the only
votive from the Akropolis dedicated by a sculptor: potters offered sculpted votives to Athena
839
See n. 829. Moreover, in the fourth century, the standard price for public stelai in Athens became
20-30 dr, although there were fluctuations over that period (Loomis 1998, 158-65). For the
variety of sizes and amounts of text on these reliefs, see Meyer 1989 and Lawton 1995.
840
E.g. the carpenters Manis and Mikion, who moonlighted as ‘unskilled’ labourers at a drachma a
day: IG I3 475 ls. 11-2 and 184 (fr. XIII, I.4a); ls. 70-1 and 246-7, against e.g. line 384. See
Randall 1953, 206 table 5.
841
Loomis 1998, 234; cf. Randall 1953, 206-7.
842
See APF 286-90.
843
Akr. 3075, cat. V 216. Cat. V 227, Akr. 577 is dated to the first quarter of the fifth century. Cf.
Himmelmann 1994, 45-6 fig. 19; Chatzedemetriou 2005, 179, 225. Mitropoulou 1977, 31
suggests it is a goldsmith’s votive, but there is no clear evidence of this.
195
more often.844 The apparent lack of enthusiasm among sculptors to dedicate their on
handiwork defies explanation. Perhaps late-archaic sculptors earned more than potters and
preferred metal votives; or they could have offered their services to sanctuaries for free; or
they may simply have refrained from inscribing their profession on the votives which they
may or may not have made themselves. That some sculptors could afford to offer dedications
is clear from the cases mentioned earlier, such as Archermos and his family.
Many sculpture-related activities can be traced in the archaeological record of archaic and
classical Athens. Not only do these examples show the variety of the trades plied by the
support personnel in this art world, but they also suggest that gradually, the variety and
intensity of specialised crafts in fifth-century Athens grew. The excavated examples show an
increase in workshops which seem to have practiced only one trade simultaneously in the
fifth and fourth centuries, whether this was metal-working or sculpture. For the workshop in
house F, more varied activity has been suggested, of bone-working to the production of paint
and glass. The separate existence of workshops like this, next to sculpture workshops from
the same period suggests that the sculptor, the smith, the letter-cutter and the pigmentseller all were specialists, and worked together in consecutive phases of single projects. The
fecit inscription on the stylus by Mikion also points in this direction. This development is
similar to the growing divide between sculptors and those who worked in the marble quarries
proposed in the previous chapter. It also implies increasing vertical specialisation in the
sculpture world of ancient Athens. In it, the sculptor is no longer the first and last person to
work on the commission, but collaborates with the support personnel, the craftsmen who
practice other, complementary trades, to complete the statue or stele.
6
C ONCLUSION :
THE ORY AND PRACTICE IN SCULPTURE
Art was on the Athenians’ mind, if the works of the fourth-century philosophers are any
indication. Their discussion about technai and the wide range of ancient opinions on their
merits shows that in some circles, arts and crafts were subject to much debate. All the more
844
For a discussion of patrons and their background, see below ch. IV.4.
196
surprising is the rather wan image of sculpture which often appears in contemporary sources.
Presumably, sculpture is among the arts, it is something pleasing or a plaything, but unlike
many other art forms or crafts, sculpture is not explicitly included in this categorisation. This
creates the impression that it is not quite as much under attack as certain other art forms,
such as poetry or painting.
In Plato’s ideal state, craftsmen should by all means stick to their profession, since
he considers specialisation the key to successful organisation of the polis. Although Plato
obviously does not speak of vertical and horizontal specialisation or of art worlds, he comes
close in the Statesman:845
‘…the sorts of expertise there are in relation to such things, which by producing
cork, and papyrus, and materials for bindings make possible the working up of
classes of composite things from classes of things that are not put together.’
In fourth-century philosophy, a rudimentary notion of art worlds seems to have been thought
out. In practice, infrastructure for the sculpture world expanded and processes of
manufacture became more specialised in the course of the sixth and fifth centuries. It is not
possible to trace these developments in the contemporary lexical record, notably in Greek
words for sculptor from that period. However, the terminology of sculpture shows a level of
nuance that must be linked to the high technical quality of the sculptors of the time.
Moreover, the built workshops in the Athenian archaeological record of the fifth century
suggests that at least at that time, sculptors were or became more resident. This applies
particularly to Athens, where demand for sculpture was high. Related crafts settled nearby
and functioned as support personnel for the sculpture and building trades.
The creation of stone sculpture required a myriad of activities, from obtaining all
kinds of raw materials to the actual carving of the sculpture; from meticulous polishing to the
applying complex patterns in paint. The support personnel who executed many of these
tasks were numerous and their jobs diverged widely: quarrymen, carters, pigment traders,
tool makers of all kinds, various types of smiths and metal-workers, painters, and lettercutters are only the crafts which can be distinguished with certainty. The level of
845
Pl. Plt. 288e.: ‘… te kai\ e)myu/xwn de/rmata swma/twn periairou=sa skutotomikh/, kai\ o(/sai peri\ ta\
toiau=ta/ ei)sin te/xnai, kai\ fellw=n kai\ bu/blwn kai\ desmw=n e)rgastikai\ pare/sxon dhmiourgei=n
su/nqeta e)k mh\ suntiqeme/nwn ei)/dh genw=n (transl. Rowe, in Cooper and Hutchinson 1997).
197
specialisation may have been even more advanced, but for the present it shows that sculpture
was, or at least became in the fifth century, a branch of trade with considerable vertical
specialisation, requiring an extensive network of craftsmen and an elaborate infrastructure of
supply. In the sixth century, the situation of Athenian sculpture may as yet have been
simpler. In Athens, the classical sculpture world emerged when the market for private
sculpture converged with extraordinary architectural projects to create an ideal environment
for the development of the trade. As the next chapter will show, patronage was to provide the
necessary impetus.
198
IV A patron’s world
1
S CULPTURE
PATRONAGE AND THE
A THENIANS
Sculpture in archaic and early-classical Athens relied largely on patronage. Without demand
for statuary, sculptors would not have taken up residence in Athens simply because they
could not have made a living there. Already in the archaic period, many signatures of
individual sculptors in Athenian epigraphy indicate that it was worth their while to remain in
the city for longer periods of time, or even to set up shop there. The demand for votive and
sepulchral sculpture was an important reason to stay; and the patrons who created these
favourable circumstances helped the development of sculpture.846 Much of what they
preferred was reflected in the statues which were produced. Although the purpose of a
commission must have had some influence on, for example, the type of sculpture, it was the
patrons who determined how much they wanted to spend and on which occasions they
wanted to offer statues. Material, size and complexity of a sculpture were in theory at the
patron’s discretion. To which extent Athenian patrons were involved in these aspects of their
commissions is a main question of this chapter. Did Athenian patrons choose only things like
the genre of their commission, or what a figure in a relief would be holding, or did their
influence reach further?
In inscriptions, there were choices to be made, too.847 Epigrams might be made by
patrons or by professional poets, while some chose for a plain name inscription. By the late
fifth century, the letter-cutters who carved these inscriptions were specialised craftsmen, but
on some bases the dedicatory inscription is in a different hand than the signature, which may
mean sculptors carved their own signatures.848 For example, an associate of the sculptor who
846
Consecutive architectural projects in Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries possibly provided
work for sculptors at the times when private demand was less strong.
847
I would like to express my gratitude to Rolf Hochscheid and Mathieu de Bakker for their help in
translating the inscriptions in this chapter. Any errors remain, of course, my responsibility.
848
Cat. B 10, cat. V 38, Akr. 136, 4346 (a-b), 6506 (c-d), is a statue of Athena set on a fluted column
with a Lesbian capital. The dedicant is Epiteles, the sculptor Pythis. Cf. IG I3 680 (cat. B 22, Akr.
9746) with IG I3 788 (cat. V 60, Akr. 140). The latter, the Angelitos Athena, is inscribed on the
fragments of the column on which she stood with the signature of Euenor: this is in a different
199
was good at lettering may have cut the inscription, while the master sculptor personally
signed his work. Alternatively, as early as the sixth century a specialised letter-cutter may
have come in for the inscription, perhaps at the site where the statue was to be erected. In
short, patrons could choose who did the inscription, what it would look like, and what would
be in it; but if they did not want to do so or were incapable, others would work out the
details, be they the sculptor, a poet or a letter-cutter.
Sculptural and epigraphic evidence of these choices by the patrons reflects
something of their motives for ordering sculpture. These may have been religious, economic,
political or a combination, the emphasis shifting from one aspect to the other in accordance
with the occasion and the patron’s personal circumstances. Sculpture patronage was based
on the social and cultural backgrounds of the Athenian patrons, which is why the evidence
about them is invaluable. Thanks to the preserved material, sculpture patronage in Athens
can be approached from two angles. Through the epigraphic record, the identity of patrons
can to a certain extent be traced, while the results of their choices can be found in the
preserved votive and sepulchral monuments. This information makes it possible to
investigate the connection between the social identity of patrons and the appearance of their
sculpture, or in other words, between the patrons’ status and their sculptural preferences.
Without a doubt, patrons had personal motives for setting up votive or sepulchral
sculpture. The questions is: did they also have more public reasons? Was sculpture a means
of improving one’s social or even political status in ancient Athens? Should the art world of
Athenian sculpture be seen as an arena for conspicuous consumption? An attempt to answer
these questions must start with an overview of how inscriptions were used, and practical
limitations attached to it. The next topic for consideration is what patrons ordered: the
genres and iconography of the monuments. A closer look at the evidence from epigraphy
about the identity of those who ordered and erected sculpture in archaic and early-classical
Athens will follow in sections four and five. Patrons’ choices may have been curbed by rules
or legislation imposed by sanctuaries or by the city’s authorities. This chapter will conclude
with an exploration of such sacred and civic guidelines regarding votives and gravestones.
hand than the votive inscription Angelitos son of Ech[---. The former example dates to 525-500,
the latter 500-475. The different hand cannot be caused by later additions to the monuments: the
signatures are dated around the same time as the votive inscriptions (the alternative could be the
case e.g. on cat. B 217, Akr. 4184).
200
2
T HE
PLACE OF INSC RIPTIONS
In the inscription with which this study began, Telesinos of Kettos entreated Athena to grant
him continued prosperity: Parthenos, Telesinos of Kettos dedicated a statue on the Akropolis;
if it pleases you, may you allow that he dedicate another. The request brings Telesinos
amazingly close to the reader, even twenty-five centuries after it was written. Although not
all inscriptions are as personal as this one, the names and the wording in general show to a
certain degree how patrons wished to be represented: prospering in business, excelling in a
profession, in military or political success or simply as worthy human beings.849 The place of
inscriptions on monuments varies, and certainly not all preserved gravestones or votives were
inscribed.850 Apparently, some patrons thought it unnecessary. This may have been their
choice, but the use of inscriptions may also have been subject to rules of a social or religious
nature; and there may have been practical considerations. The latter will be examined here.
Names of sculpture patrons on votives or of their deceased relatives on gravestones
are mostly inscribed on the bases: namely, in 264 out of the 288 examples with an
inscription collected here (table 6, chart 6.2). Only 131 out of 513 sculptures are inscribed.
No statue in the material of this study has an inscription (table 6, chart 6.1-2),851 and the
inscribed objects apart from bases belong to specific genres. In votives these are most often
basins (a total 52 out of the 131 inscribed sculptures)852 and in gravestones usually stelai or
849
See sections 4 and 5 below for this aspect. This study does not purport a full investigation of
name types in archaic and classical Athens, which requires different research criteria (cf. the work
of D. Kretschmann at the university of Utrecht). It merely offers a survey of trends in name types
over the sixth and fifth centuries, to find out whether this corresponds with any patterns which
appear in the sculpture of the present data record.
850
Regrettably, the proportion of monuments which were purposely not inscribed cannot be
established since the bases of too many of the sculptures and reliefs do not survive.
851
In other parts of Greece, statues were sometimes signed: cf. Keesling 2001, 11-2, 216 n. 30. Cult
statues (and their bases) have long been considered unsignable, too. Donderer noted (see above
n. 699) that the artist’s signature may have been in a practically invisible place on the statue itself,
as e.g. on Pheidias’ Olympian Zeus. There is of course a religious difference between cult statues
and private gravestones or votives; but besides, an inconspicuous inscription on private sculpture
defeats the purpose of public display.
852
For an overview of genres in this study, see table 5. Discussion below, p. 206 and further. Out of
52 votives with name inscriptions, 40 are basins (table 6a), mostly from 500-475 (29); one from
600-575 (cat. V 283, EM 6521a-b); seven from 525-500 (below n. 866); and three from 475-450:
cat. V 306, EM 6542, of a certain ---odoros; cat. V 314, EM 6556 dedicated by [---]eus?; and cat.
V 315, EM 6536, the basin of Satyros. The other 12 votives with patrons’ names are: a diskos (cat.
V 338, EM 6058, of Demophilos?); a plaque or stele dated 525-500 (cat. V 333, EM 5529, for [--
201
reliefs.853 Three archaic diskoi from funerary contexts are inscribed, as well as one votive.854
Two sepulchral lekythoi from the final quarter of the fifth century also bear inscriptions.855 In
general, however, there is a great preference for inscribing bases rather than statuary in
archaic and classical Athens, with the exception of reliefs and stelai.
There can sometimes be technical objections against inscribing statuary – think of a
rough surface such as the fur of an animal – but an inscription need not have looked out of
place on, for example, the folds of a mantle. Names could be painted on the statue,
especially on rounded surfaces.856 Nevertheless, the flat face of a base allows for easier
reading than a sculpted surface;857 and the rich decoration of sculpted garments in the
hab]ronichos: reconstruction IG I3 749); one relief from 450-425 (the stele of Demokrates to a
hero, cat. V 332, NMA 1460) and eight from 425-400 (n. 874). Cat. V 333, EM 5529, is an
inscribed stele of Habronichos. The other inscribed votives in the record are all reliefs.
853
Of 79 name inscriptions on gravestones, 30 are on reliefs, 43 on stelai, and one on a finial (cat. G
136, NMA no. ?, for Charmantides, 425-400). Of 600-575 is the stele of Semiades (cat. G 20, KM I
461). The stele EM 420, cat. G 116, of 575-550 has multiple, much damaged names. Four
inscribed stelai date to 525-500: cat. G 36, AM I 2056 (Theron); cat. G 107, NMA 86 (Antiphanes);
cat. G 137, EM 10253 (son of Aides?); cat. G 152, EM 416 ([--]xenos son of Kaletor). Cat. G 173,
EM 10225 (st. of Damainetos of Pale) dates 475-450. Nine inscribed stelai are of 450-425; and 57
(including six cippus-like stelai) of 425-400: cat. G 126, AM I 2533; cat. G 147, EM 1810; cat. G
148, NMA 2588; cat. G 159, ML mnd 1795; cat. G 160, EM 12565; cat. G 174, EM 10221. Five
inscribed reliefs of 425-400 are: cat. G 45, NMA 3254; cat. G 46, KM P 1169; cat. G 108, NMA
901; cat. G 110, St. M. 1613 (K 22); cat. G 163, NMA 2066.
854
Diskoi: for Gnathon (cat. G 170, BM 935, c. 550-525), an unknown man (cat. G 171, BMFA
1987.621) and Telesarchos (cat. G 172, NYMM 1985.11.4, c. 525-500). Votive diskos: cat. V 338,
EM 6058, for Demophilos.
855
Lekythoi for Myrrhine (cat. G. 59, NMA 4485); and for Chaireas, Eukoline, and Onesimos, whose
family relations are somewhat unclear (MGlypt 209, cat. G 91).
856
There is to my knowledge no parallel in vase painting where the name is inscribed inside the
contour of the figure. The François Vase or the Siphnian frieze at Delphi e.g. do have painted
name inscriptions, but none of these is on the figures. Insteadm they are on the background
around them. See also below n. 859.
857
Stelai from the archaic period regularly had their base inscribed rather than their frame: cat. B
126, EM 10643, IG I3 1380 for Lampito, by Philtiades of Samos or Paros; cat. B 142, KM I 327, IG I3
1219 for the boy Smikythos; cat. B 152, KM I 424, IG I3 1206, for Aisimides; cat. B 154, EM 13486,
IG I3 1209, for Kleito; cat. B 190 for Sosines, EM 10364, IG I3 1195 (name inscribed twice). Votive
stelai with inscribed bases: pillar with relief, by Pythodoros to Aphrodite (cat. B 98, EM 6425, IG I3
832); rel. to Graces Akr. 702 with b. EM 6358 (cat. V 115, cat. B 166), both 500-475. Of 475-450:
cat. B 203, EM 6253, IG I3 857 by Mikythe and her children; cat. B 199, EM 6303, son of Lysippos;
cat. B 244, Akr. no. ?, Phaidros son of Prothymides of Kephalai; cat. B 255, EM 8169, Aristomache
and Charikleia, daughters of Glaukinos. The emphasis is on votives in the fifth century, on
gravestones in the sixth: an inscribed base for a votive st. is cat. B 70 (cat. V 164, Akr. 13250,
Potter’s Relief) 525-500; one for funerary st. is cat. B 103, EM 10635, IG I3 1236, 500-475.
202
archaic period was not conducive to high visibility.858 In the fifth century, this problem would
have been less pressing, since textile in sculpture was often painted one solid colour by
then.859 However, the new preference for more tranquil surfaces may have precluded
inscribed or painted letters on them. A more pictorial approach to painting statues which
evolved in the later fifth century enhanced sculpted surfaces with light-and-dark contrasts,
by covering depths with darker colours than more protruding parts.860 Such impressionism
would have been spoiled by painted names. Some stelai had painted images (pl. 26a) or
sculpted elements were given more detail with paint.861 It is possible that dedicators’ names
were sometimes painted rather than inscribed on monuments, but no examples survive.862
A large majority of inscriptions on votive bases (229 out of 264 more or less
recognisable names on bases: table 6) contrasts with the small proportion on funerary bases:
there are 35 examples on bases, but 79 are on grave sculptures proper. Over two thirds of all
name inscriptions in this study are on the base of the monument,863 while slightly over a
third is on sculptures, mostly stelai or reliefs (tables 6a-b; pls. 24a-b).864 But while
gravestones are often inscribed, inscriptions on votive stelai or reliefs from the late fifth
century are much scarcer.865 The votive and grave reliefs from this period (table 5) differ little
in appearance, apart from the iconographical idiosyncrasies of the two functions. It is
858
The sculpted drapery was usually complemented by copious use of colour, as can be seen in e.g.
the reconstruction of the Peplos kore, Akr. 679, cat. V. 6, as proposed by Brinkmann and Brijder
2005, 47-55; also from a closer inspection of the decoration of the horseman in the Kerameikos,
cat. G 22, KM P 1051, which shows light spots where paint protected the stone, revealing an
elaborate pattern of various motifs.
859
Koch-Brinkmann and Posamentir 2005, 151-59. Cf. above n. 779.
860
Koch-Brinkmann and Posamentir 2005, ibid.; cf. also Brinkmann 2007.
861
E.g. cat. G 107, NMA 86, the Antiphanes stele had painted animals, now invisible to the naked
eye. The stele of Theron (cat. G 36, AM I 2056) is smooth except for two lines on the top and
bottom and an incised floral motive. Otherwise the decoration was painted and visible when it was
found. Both date c. 525-500. The stele of Nautes son of Eudemides of Torone, cat. G 148, NMA
2588, was a roof tile with a painted taenia; the stele of Lissos, cat. G. 143, KM I 417 had a painted
astragal along the top of the front.
862
It is perhaps unlikely that those who could afford a stele were unable to pay the letter-cutter. Even
crude, make-shift gravestones have inscriptions scratched in, e.g. the stele of Dorkion and Kallis,
cat. G 156, EM 489.
863
Of bases whose statue is known, the inscription counts for the base, not for the statue.
864
Of inscriptions on sculpture, just over 60% are on gravestones; of inscriptions on bases, 87% are
on votives.
865
Eight votive reliefs from 425-400 have name inscriptions: cf. below n. 874.
203
noteworthy that the Athenians inscribed so many of their gravestones, but so few of their
votive reliefs or stelai.
Thus, archaic sculptures proper are rarely inscribed, but in the fifth century this
changes for grave stelai and reliefs and to a lesser extent for their votive equivalents.866 Only
two bases for grave monuments date from the fifth century, both with inscriptions (table
6b).867 Though these are very low numbers, the survival of any sepulchral bases is interesting
in the light of their strong decline in this period. It seems that a few bases were still made for
sepulchral monuments. In the beginning of the fifth century, votive bases are more numerous
and so are their inscriptions: all 32 votive bases from the second quarter are inscribed (table
6a).868 After that, inscribed votive bases seem to dwindle, too.869 The last in the record is a
base for a marble votive from the third quarter of the fifth century.870
Basins are often inscribed on the rim rather than the pedestal. A reason for this may
well be that the wide basin hides the shaft of the support (pls. 20c, 26b) and an inscription
on it would be hard to read. Other genres with practical reasons for inscribing the object
rather than the pedestal are reliefs and stelai, since the inscription can be fitted on the frame
or the pediment. Both basins and reliefs show a peak at the end of the archaic period (table
5); but the fastest growing genre in this period is that of the korai, which is also the largest
group of a single genre at the time. Their dedicators had their names inscribed on the
866
Six out of 28 gravestones, eight out of 113 votives were inscribed in 525-500. Gravestones: cat. G
36, AM I 2056 (Theron st.); cat. G 107, NMA 86 (Antiphanes stele); cat. G 137, EM 10253 (fr. of
plaque); cat. G 152, EM 416 (fr. of st.); cat. G 152, BMFA 1987.621; cat. G 172, NYMM 1985.11.4
(2 diskoi). Votives: cat. V 282, EM 6547 (fr. basin); cat. V 287, EM 6529 (fr. of basin of
Komonides); cat. V 288, EM 6544 (fr. of basin); cat. V 289, EM 6526, Akr. Q 65 (frs. of basin); cat.
V 293, EM 6535 (+6555?) (frs. of basin of Polyxenos); cat. V 296, EM 6546 (fr. of basin); cat. V
307, EM 6524 (fr. of basin); cat. V 331, EM 6417 (st. of man?). An exception is the grave stele of
Aristion from which has the signature (Aristokles) on the stele, just below the carved figure.
867
Dated 500-475 is cat. B 103, EM 10635 the base of the funerary statue (probably in marble) of [---]antios; cat. B 128, EM 10254 carried the grave statue of Menestho (c. 450-425).
868
Not all names can be deciphered. Cf. table 1 and 6. It is uncertain whether this could be the result
of deliberate or coincidental selection of blocks, e.g. for construction.
869
In the second, third, and last quarter of the fifth century numbers fall from 32 to 15 to six (cf.
below n. 873).
870
From 450-425 for marble votive: AM I 5128, cat. B 136, IG I3 876 (of Kallias?). Inscribed bases for
bronze votives continue slightly longer: 475-450, 19 examples; from 450-425, 13; from 425400: six, namely cat. B 104, AM I 3398, IG I3 962 (Anti]ochis, A------- and E[-------]); cat. B
105, EM 10330, IG I3 965, Kleisthenes; cat. B 143, EM 6296, IG I3 897 (… of Alopeke?); cat. B 146,
EM 6297 (fragmentary); Akr. 13264, cat. B 176, IG I3 895 (Chairedemos son of Euangelos of Koile);
cat. B 177, Akr. no. ?, IG I3 900 (son of [Cha]ires of Cholargos).
204
supports, whatever shape they took: columns, pillars and all kinds of lower bases.871 Later in
the fifth century, numbers of inscribed names slowly returned to the levels of the earlier
archaic period. Inscribed bases for bronze votives stayed in production in the fifth century,
though also in smaller quantities than before (table 6a).
Inscriptions on grave sculpture develop quite differently from those on votives (tables
6a-b, charts 6a-b). Almost two thirds of all grave reliefs and stelai from the sixth and fifth
centuries are inscribed.872 In the third quarter of the fifth century, the percentage is slightly
higher and in the final quarter it reaches more than four fifths.873 By comparison, only 52 out
of 338 votive sculptures are inscribed (table 6a) and without basins, there would be only 12
examples. Thus, there is a fundamental difference between inscriptions on votives and those
on gravestones. For the former, inscriptions are most commonly placed on the supports, with
the exception of basins (table 6a). In early-archaic grave monuments, bases are quite popular
for inscriptions too, but in the later fifth century this changes (table 6b) and they move to
stelai and reliefs instead. Votive reliefs do not follow this pattern to the same degree.874
The discussion above suggests that the place of inscriptions depends largely on the
genres of sculpture and on the period in question. The most likely sculptures to be inscribed
are basins of the late sixth and early fifth centuries and the grave stelai of the second half of
the fifth century. Trends in the placement of name inscriptions seem to hinge on a
practicality: the manner of erection of the dedication or gravestone – with or without a pillar,
column, or base, on a wall or in a cutting in the ground. This, in turn, depended on the genre,
size and shape of the statue or stele for which it was intended.
871
Cf. Jacob-Felsch 1969; Kissas 2000.
872
Of a total of 120 grave stelai and reliefs, six are technically cippi; four have been counted,
although only finials are preserved and it is possible they belong to an extant stele. Of the latter,
74 are inscribed.
873
For 450-425, 10 out of 14 grave stelai in the dataset are inscribed; for 425-400 59 out of 68.
874
Eight out of 52 votive reliefs from 425-400 have inscriptions: cat. V 231, NMA 1329, IG I3 955,
rel. to Pan and the Nymphs; cat. V 233, NMA 1341, IG ii/iii2 4356, rel. to Asklepios; and cat. V
325, NMA 1389, IG I3 956, rel. to Apollo (inscribed on the geison). The other five reliefs have
inscriptions but the patron’s name is unclear: cat. 172, Akr. 1348, to Demeter and Kore; cat. 225,
NMA 1841, to Asklepios; cat. 232, NMA 1340, to Asklepios; cat. 274, NMA 1398, fr. of rel. to
Athena; cat. 324, NMA 3572, to Demeter and Kore.
205
3
I CONOGRAPHY
AND GENRES OF SCULPTURE
Athenian patrons had their favourites among the genres of sculpture. The main genres in this
study are: seated figures (often but not always the same as) deities, youths or kouroi, korai,
horsemen, animals (including single horses) and mythical creatures, vessels, reliefs and
stelai, and miscellanea. The patrons’ preferences naturally changed over time, and the
question is whether these shifts can be related to the social backgrounds of patrons and the
changing circumstances of life in archaic or early-classical Athens. Before this can be
investigated, an overview is required of which sculptural genres or types are most common
and when, and how the iconographic details of a dominant genre, sculpted reliefs, develop
over time. This section will present the development of genres and of several aspects of their
iconography, to enable a discussion of the patrons’ choices in the next part of this chapter.
Genres in Athenian sculpture can be subdivided in three overall clusters (table 5c-d).
The first of these consists of functional objects – in theory, for a marble shield or lekythos
would be of little use in daily life.875 In the second group are six genres which can be
summed up as human figures in the round, sometimes with animals added to the
composition, and some divine rather than mortal. Finally, three genres of in-the-round
sculpture can be grouped under the header of animals (without human figures).876 In the
material studied here, human figures are a majority: 184 votives are or include human
figures, 28 are animals and 49 other objects (table 5d).877 In grave sculpture, human figures
are most numerous too, but only a total of 26 is preserved, while the objects and animals are
relatively close in numbers.878
875
Related to Snodgrass’ ‘raw’ offerings of everyday objects (Snodgrass 2006, 263-7; cf. Langdon
1987, 108-12 for the transition of Bronze to Iron Age).
876
Groups have to consist exclusively of animals to fall into this category. One of these group is
preserved in the record: a miniature hunting scene of a lion and bull from the Agora, dated c.
500-475 (cat. 59, AM S 1477).
877
Mythical creatures are excluded from the human figures, as well as the one all-animal group
(previous note); deities are included. Horsemen are included there too; if they were counted
among animals as well, the number of animals would rise to 42. Chariot horses like cat. V 110,
Akr. 575-580 have been counted as one instance. Reliefs and stelai are not among the ‘objects’.
878
Objects 17, animals 14.
206
In the archaic period, korai were the main genre with 98 examples (pl. 49, table 5).879 No
other type of statue can match the 45 korai from the final quarter of the sixth century or the
32 examples in the next quarter. For a genre that is almost always used for dedication, this is
impressive. Nonetheless, by the mid-fifth century, stelai and reliefs had become the most
common types of sculpture in Athens (table 5a).880 Regardless of votive or funerary function,
155 reliefs constitute the largest genre in the sixth and fifth centuries. Votive reliefs are
approximately a quarter of all votive sculpture and more than a sixth of all sculpture. In
gravestones, reliefs come to about two-fifths of the total.881 Rather surprising is the thirdlargest genre in votives after reliefs and korai: basins or louteria, with just over 12 percent of
all votives (pls. 26b-d). They are the only genre which approaches the high number of korai
in the early fifth century (table 5a).882 If funerary basins are included, basins and korai end up
in a tie.883 The total number of basins comes to 46 in the sixth and fifth centuries, and the
last one dates from the third quarter of the fifth century.884 This shows the sharp decline of
numbers of basins by then, a trend similar to the korai a quarter-century before (table 5).885
Of the genres which survive in smaller quantities, among the most popular are kouroi
and lamps, which occur in votive and sepulchral contexts (table 5a).886 Their heyday in
Athens falls in the early sixth century: four kouroi (pls. 4c, 27a-d) date to this period. All are
larger than life-size and compare in scale to three grave stelai (pl. 28a) and an elaborate
879
There are no funerary korai among them. Their absence in the record hampers a comparison with
reliefs of two functions. Ranked among votives only, korai are by far most numerous: votive reliefs
total 85 (table 5). For the function of korai, cf. Richter 1968; Karakasi 2001; Meyer and
Brüggemann 2007.
880
The total comes to 207 examples if stelai and reliefs are added up. Cf. table 5a.
881
The 40 percent comprises 70 reliefs, but this number is still higher than the third-largest votive
genre, basins.
882
Basins 29; korai 32.
883
Funerary basins of 500-475: cat. G 131, KM P 1615-1616, fr. of basin; cat. G 132, KM P 1617, fr.
of basin; cat. G 134, KM P 1618, fr. of basin.
884
Cat. G 130, KM P 1374. No funerary basins date to 475-450. Votive basins of 475-450: EM 6542,
cat. V 306, fr.; EM 6556, cat. V 314, fr.; EM 6536, cat. V 315, fr. of basin of Satyros.
885
In the later fifth century, only one preserved statuette could with some flexibility be called a kore:
cat. V 256, Akr. 1310, statuette of a girl in peplos and himation.
886
Four votive lamps from the Akropolis: cat. V 122, Akr. 190; cat. V 222, Akr. no. ?; cat. V 223, Akr.
3869; and cat. V 156, Akr 225-226, frs. of a lamp. From a funerary context in the Kerameikos:
cat. G 29, KM P 315, small head once attached to a lamp. Funerary kouroi: cat. G 5, NMA 71; cat.
G 6, NMA 3372, 3965, Dipylon Kouros; cat. G 9, AM S 287/1677/530/1739/1908, frs.; cat. G 19,
KM P 1698, Kouros of the Sacred Gate.
207
basin or perirrhanterion (pl. 28b), supported by karyatids from the same period.887 By
contrast, some lamps (pls. 28c-d) and a small poros lion of this period speak of more modest
expenditure.888 In the mid-sixth century, reliefs and korai begin their ascent and new types
appear as well: sphinxes, horsemen, seated figures, and deities (pls. 29a-d).889 Soon after
their introduction, animals and mythical creatures approach numbers of korai; only reliefs are
more numerous (table 5a).890 Existing genres remained popular in the third quarter of the
sixth century, too.
Towards the end of the sixth century, the number of various genres occurring
simultaneously in one quarter century rises rapidly from ten to fifteen (table 5b).891 The genre
variation seems to increase more in votives than in gravestones (table 5c). This is no surprise,
considering the large amount of extant votive sculpture from this period. In fact, the
inhabitants of Athens seem remarkably faithful to their customary types of sculpture in the
late-archaic period. It is true that the range of genres is wider at the end of the sixth century
(table 5c), but the only new genre in the record is the sculpted group, of which the wrestling
Theseus and Prokrustes (pl. 10a) form an example.892 This is one of the first groups
preserved, but it is unlikely that none were made earlier: fragments in the record may now be
too poorly preserved to recognise them as part of a group. What does seem clear is the
increasing complexity of sculpture at the end of the sixth century: the wrestling figures are
certainly more difficult to carve than an early kore or lamp.
887
Cat. V 1, Akr. 592, perirrhanterion carried by three female figures; the other votive basin fr. from
600-575 is cat. V 283, EM 6521a-b (frs. of basin with top plate). Cat. G 20, KM I 461, stele of
Semiades; cat. G 96, KM P 1133, poros stele; cat. G 135, KM no. ?, plain stele.
888
Lion: KM no. ?, cat. G 104. Basin: cat. V 283, EM 6521a-b. For the lamps see n. 886.
889
Seated figures are cat. G 86, NMA 7 from the Themistoklean Wall and probably a funerary statue;
cat. V 88, Akr. 169, a seated woman; and cat. V 87, Akr. 655, probably a Kybele (pl. 7b). From
550-525 date a seated man from the Kerameikos, KM P 1052, cat. G 85; and a seated woman
from the Akropolis, presumably a goddess although there is no proof: Akr. 620, cat. V 89.
890
Korai from 575-550: cat. V 14, Akr. 593; cat. V 15, Akr. 619; cat. V 16, Akr. 677; cat. V 54, AM S
1358; cat. V 60, Akr. 656; cat. V 130, Akr. 589; cat. V 131, Akr. 583; cat. V 185, Akr. 399. Akr.
654, cat. V 17 is probably part of a sphinx’s head, but might also be a kore’s. Animals from 575550: cat. G 17, KM P 1699, lion; cat. G 18, KM no. ?, crouching lion; and cat. G 99, KM no. ?, frs. of
a lion. Votive sphinxes: cat. V 108, Akr. 630; cat. V 196, Akr. 4164, 3835; cat. V 17, Akr. 654.
Funerary sphinxes: cat. G 16, KM P 1697; cat. G 73, KM P 1050 (B 394); cat. G 74, NMA 2891.
Horsemen, 575-550: cat. G 3, Akr. 590, ML Ma 3104, Rampin Rider; cat. G 110, Akr. 575-80,
horses of chariot; cat. G 45, Akr. 617, head of horseman (based on tilt of the neck).
891
Genre totals are based on sculpture alone, not on the information derived from bases: the type of
statue on bases is too often unclear.
892
Akr. 145, 370, cat. V 119.
208
Patrons in the archaic period had chosen genres for their sculpture from at least 12 different
types (leaving out stelai and reliefs). Although these old genres remained popular in the latearchaic period, many of them disappeared shortly after its conclusion. Lamps had already lost
favour with the Athenians in the second quarter of the sixth century and apparently returned
neither in votive nor in sepulchral settings (table 5a). Animals, mythical creatures, horsemen
and some miscellaneous types of sculpture also fell out of use at the end of the archaic
period.893 Two unfinished sepulchral figurines of youths from the later fifth century are
preserved, but no other statues of young men survive.894 By the final quarter of the century,
most gravestones by far were reliefs. Of the votives of this period, only four are not reliefs:
three goddesses and a figurine of a girl (table 5).895
Various animals had been subjects in archaic statuary, both for votive and sepulchral
settings.896 Horses and horsemen (table 10b), for example, had peaked in the final quarter of
the sixth century, most often as dedications and in one instance from Athens as a grave
monument (pls. 15b, 31a-b).897 The record of the early fifth-century, by contrast, produces
893
Cat. V 128, Akr. 1323, a Dionysos mask; cat. V 135, Akr. 448 and cat. V 224, Akr. 338, shields: all
these date 525-500. Cat. V 9338, EM 6058, frs. of a diskos, dates 475-450. Cat. G 170, BM 935;
cat. G 171, BMFA 1987.621; and cat. G 172, NYMM 1985.11.4 are funerary diskoi from 525-500.
894
Kouroi frs.: cat. G 101, KM P 1471, right lower arm with hand; cat. G 102, KM P 1512, left foot on
plinth. Both were probably made in the Kerameikos, though not necessarily to be set up there.
Their funerary function is uncertain, but in view of the find spot they are so listed. They may also
be training pieces.
895
Girl: above n. 885. Three goddesses: cat. V 220, AM S 654, small Athena statue; cat. V 327, Akr.
3027, Athena statuette; cat. V 255, AM S 1882, a more than life-size goddess, perhaps Aphrodite,
which might have been a cult statue (and if so, would not belong in this study). Further examples
in Vlassopoulou 2005: from poorly preserved fragments, she has reconstructed several statues
and statuettes of Athena, 11 dating to c. 450-400. Most are in too poor a state to be included
here; a possible architectural function of several of them would rule those statues out. Still, the
image of ubiquitous reliefs is toned down somewhat by this. Cf. below n. 970.
896
Votive animals: two owls, cat. V 106, Akr. 1347 (pl. 30e) and cat. V 201, Akr. 1355, 245; a bird,
cat. V 58, AM S 1990, 525-500; cat. V 200, Akr. no. ? + 5656, frs. of bull; two dogs, both 525500, cat. V 117, Akr. 143 and cat. V 199, Akr. 550, 525. The first votive horsemen are from 575550: cat. V 45, Akr. 617, head of horseman; cat. V 3, Akr. 590, ML Ma 3104, Rampin Rider; cat. V
110, Akr. 575-580, a group of four horse protomes with their charioteer (counted as one
‘horseman’). From 550-525: cat. G 22, KM P 1051, from a sepulchral setting in the Kerameikos. In
total 13 horses in the round, with or without riders, are listed in the dataset.
897
A total of seven is preserved: cat. V 208, Akr. 571, plinth with feet and hooves, technically a man
leading a horse; cat. V 136, Akr. 623, 4119, frs. of a horseman; cat. V 116, Akr. 606, the Persian
Rider; cat. V 18, Akr. 1359, frs. of a horseman; and cat. V 120, Akr. 700, a horseman, all date
525-500. Cat. G 205, Akr. 3670, 532, no. ? are fragments of a horse. Cat. V 127, Akr. 597, man
209
one horse (pl. 31c) and one horseman, and these are the last freestanding marble horses of
that century.898 Lions had been even more popular than horses in archaic sculpture. Of 21
votive animals (and one animal group), five are lions;899 and eight of ten preserved sepulchral
animals are lions (pls. 32a-c).900 At first glance, all of these animals disappear from sculpture
in the classical period. The evidence of bases, however, nuances this picture somewhat.
Bases for equestrian sculpture (horses, groups with horses such as chariots, men
leading horses, or horsemen) come to a total of 21 (table 10b).901 Nine of the corresponding
statues were most likely bronzes, ten were in marble, and of two examples the material is
unclear (table 10b).902 If these bases are included, the total of equestrian monuments rises to
three in the second and the third quarters of the sixth century each; 19 in the final quarter;
riding a hippalektryon is a probably a hero. The sepulchral horseman dates to 550-525: cat. G
105, KM P 699.
898
Cat. V 143, Akr. 148, horseman; cat. V 162, Akr. 697 part of the front of horse.
899
Votive lions: cat. V 204, Akr. 3834, 545, fr. of lion (550-525); cat. V 202, Akr. no. ?, Nikepyrgos
Lion; cat. V 55, Akr. 3832, 3833, lion; and cat. V 329, AM S 1577, lion, all dated 525-500. The
lion cat. G 106, AM S 1942 is listed as funerary. Its findspot on the Hill of the Nymphs makes its
function uncertain, and though it may well have been a funerary lion, it can also be a dedication or
even an akroterion. Harrison’s suggestion (Ath. Ag. XI, 1965, 29-30 no. 92, pl. 13) that the
weathering indicates a high position does not necessarily mean it was architectural, since lions
could also have been placed on columns in private monuments. Cf. Thompson, Hesperia 39
(1960) 351-68, pls. 75-80; Ridgway 1993, 221-2, 249 n. 10.
900
Funerary lions: cat. V 104, KM no. ?, in poros, 600-575. From 575-550: cat. G 17, KM P 1699,
lion; cat. G 18, KM no. ?, crouching lion; cat. G 99, KM no. ?, frs. of lion; cat. V 118, KM no. ?, frs.
of lion or sphinx. From 500-475: cat. G 32, AM S 1740, fr. of lion, 550-525. The lions cat. G 23,
KM P 1053 and cat. V 106, AM S 1942, are both dated 525-500.
901
Of the 12 from the main period of 525-500, one is a grave monument (cat. B 4, KM I 389, in
marble). Some bases are not certainly for a horse: cat. B 61, EM 12353, fr. of base (550-525); cat.
B 67, EM 6416 (a), 6461 (b), frs. of base (525-500); cat. B 75, EM 6462 (a), 6466 (b), frs. of base
(500-475). Two of the votive bases from 525-500 are linked to preserved equestrian statues: a
man leading a horse, of which the plinth with feet and hooves remain (Akr. 571, cat. V 208) fits to
base cat. B 66, EM 6355 (a), 6414 (b), 6285 (c ), IG I3 642, 642bis, offered by Nauklas son of
Eudikos, perhaps made by Gorgias. Cat. B 148, Akr. no. ?, IG I3 617 is the dedication of Dionysios
son of Koloios, and it is likely that Akr. 700, cat. V 120 belongs to this base. From the classical
period are cat. B 135, Akr. no. ?; cat. B 174, Akr. 13172 (both bronze, 450-425); and cat. B 176,
Akr. 13264, 425-400, possibly for a bronze Trojan horse.
902
For marble equestrian sculpture, see previous note. Bronze horses or horsemen, 525-500: cat. B
77, EM 6242, fr. of base; cat. B 88, EM 6261, fr. of base; cat. B 147, EM 6698 (a), Akr. 13995 (b),
frs. of base; cat. B 211, Akr. 3761-2 (a-b), frs. of pillar for group; cat. B 221, Akr. 13394 (a),
15736 (b: once EM 6434), frs. of pillar. Of 500-475: cat. B 236, EM 6263, fr. of pillar. Cat. B 67,
EM 6416 (a), 6461 (b), frs. of base; cat. B 109, EM 6378, ditto for group (man leading horse?) are
of uncertain material.
210
and seven in the first quarter of the fifth century (chart 10b). From the later fifth century,
three bases for bronze equestrian groups survive. One carried a bronze four-horse chariot,
another a bronze group of a man leading his horse, and the third was possibly a dedication
of a Trojan horse.903 Of marble horses, votive or funerary, there is no sign after the first
quarter of the fifth century, so here is one aspect in which bronzes appear to take over from
their marble counterparts in the early-classical period.
The in-between category of sphinxes, neither human, divine nor animal, occurs in
both sepulchral and votive settings in the archaic period (pl. 33a).904 They seem to lose their
appeal along with other genres in the classical period, for none of them date from the fifth
century (table 5). In fact, their greatest popularity is quite early, in the second quarter of the
sixth century. However, sphinxes do sometimes appear on classical reliefs (pl. 34a).905 Other
mythical creatures in marble statuary are possibly Kerberos with Herakles, Medusa running
(pls. 34c-d) and the remarkable hippalektryon (pl. 34b). The young man riding it must be a
hero on some mythical adventure, but their story is now unfortunately lost.906
Human figures, mortal or immortal, appear to do slightly better in the fifth century
than animals and mythical creatures. From a total of 139 in the sixth century they go to 72 in
the fifth (table 5d). But in fact, 32 of the fifth-century examples are votive korai exclusively
from the first quarter of the century (table 5a); eleven votive deities and ten kouroi are from
the same period, as well as two grave kouroi (pls. 30b-c).907 In short, the fifth century only
produces a reasonable number of human figures in the round in its first quarter.
903
Cat. B 174, Akr. 13172, fr. of base for bronze four-horse chariot (IG I3 880); cat. B 135, Akr. no. ?,
fr. of base for man and horse (IG I3 511), 450-425. Cat. B 176, Akr. 13264 (IG I3 895) 425-400.
904
Sepulchral sphinxes: cat. G 16, KM P 1697; cat. G 73, KM P 1050 (B 394); cat. G 74, NMA 2891,
are all three of 575-550; cat. G 80, NMA 78, frs. of sphinx dates 550-525. Six votive sphinxes
were found on the Akropolis: cat. V 17, Akr. 654, head of a kore or sphinx (575-550); cat. V 108,
Akr. 630; cat. V 196, Akr. 4164, 3835 both of 575-550. Cat. V 195, Akr. 3723; cat. V 111, Akr.
632, 550-525; cat. V 198, Akr. 163b is 525-500.
905
Cat. G 65, KM P 280, I 192. In the sixth century, sphinxes also sometimes appeared on reliefs: cat.
210, Akr. 3702 is a double relief with a sphinx on one side and a horseman on the other. Statues
of sphinxes from the late-classical an hellenistic periods do survive: see e.g. LIMC VIII, s.v. sphinx.
906
Cat. 127, Akr. 597, hippalektryon; cat. 207, Akr. 431, group feet and paws of group, probably
Herakles with Kerberos. Both 525-500. Cat. G 76, NMA 2687 is the Gorgon stele, with probably
Medusa in the predella.
907
Votive kouroi of 500-475: cat. V 49, Akr. 689; cat. V 50, Akr. 692; cat. V 51, Akr. 698, 6478; cat.
V 134, Akr. 621; cat. V 142, Akr. 644; cat. V 159, Akr. 302; cat. V 177, NMA 3687; cat. V 179,
Akr. 4075. Other male figures: the archer cat. 160, Akr. 599 of 475-450; cat. V 163, Akr. 699,
head of youth (450-425). Funerary kouroi 500-475: cat. G 81, KM P 1455 (pl. 30b, head); cat. G
211
In sum, the majority of genres of archaic marble sculpture declines after the first quarter of
the fifth century (table 5c; cf. 5b); in fact, all in-the-round sculpture becomes scarce.
Mythical and ordinary animals, horsemen, seated figures, and lamps all disappear from votive
and sepulchral sculpture in Athens. Even basins, which had gained popularity only recently in
the early fifth century, dwindle after the end of the archaic period. Of other genres, such as
kouroi, korai, goddesses, and groups, a few fifth-century examples survive, often with a
slightly changed iconography.
This pattern is confirmed in the bases: those for sculpture in the round, sphinxes,
animals other than horses, and so forth, all come from the archaic period.908 Bases for stelai
and supports for basins persist somewhat longer in the fifth century.909 Only three categories
of sculpture feature more frequently in the fifth than in the sixth century. Marble funerary
lekythoi are an invention of the second half of the fifth century (table 5) and have no
comparison in the archaic period. They become relatively popular as grave markers in the
later fifth century.910 However, the two archaic types of sculpture which not only survive in
the fifth century, but in their new form become the classical genres par excellence, are stelai
and reliefs. By the end of the century, they were the Athenians’ favourites for practically every
purpose of their private sculpture.
87, KM P 267 (pl. 30c, left shoulder). Of 425-400 are two youths from a grave context: cat. G 101,
KM P 1471; cat. G 102, KM P 1512.
908
Cat. B 1, EM 6216, fr. of a column for a marble animal, 575-550; cat. B 30, Akr. 3826, fr. of a
cavetto capital for a marble sphinx?, 550-525; cat. B 155, EM 6428, fr. of a base for a marble
animal?; and cat. B 232, Akr. 9955 (a: once Q47), EM 6321 (b), frs. of a pillar for a bronze? animal,
both from 525-500. The latter is the only possible bronze animal (again other than horses) in the
record. For groups on bases, see table 8a-b.
909
Only six pedestals for marble basins are preserved, ranging from the beginning to the middle of
the fifth century cat. B 35, EM 6327; cat. B 36, EM 6267; cat. B 38, Akr. 607, fr. of pedestal are all
dated 500-475. Cat. B 33, EM 6319, fr. of pedestal, and cat. B 34, EM 6354 date 475-450. Cat. B
99, EM 6444, fr. of pedestal from 525-500 was perhaps for a bronze basin. It cannot be
established whether any of the preserved basins belongs to these pedestals; if they all were
independent, marble basins would reach a total of 51 examples, 35 from the first quarter of the
fifth century and five from the second. Of 525-500: cat. B 35, EM 6327; cat. B 36, EM 6267; cat. B
38, Akr. 607. From 500-475: cat. B 33, EM 6319; cat. B 34, EM 6354.
910
Of 450-425: two painted lekythoi, cat. G 7, NMA 1044; cat. G 124, KM Mag. 14. Six lekthoi from
425-400: cat. G 24, NMA 815; cat. G 31, NMA 835; cat. G 57, NMA 2584; cat. G 59, NMA 4485
(Myrrhine: IG I3 1285); cat. G 91, MGlypt 209; and cat. G 123, NMA 1698.
212
T HE SUBJECTS OF RELIEFS
Reliefs and stelai can depict any sculptural genre, which affiliates them in contents to their
in-the-round counterparts. In this way, the iconography of fifth-century reliefs absorbs
elements of many sculptural genres. The sculpted depictions of horsemen from archaic times
continue in classical reliefs (pls. 35a-b; table 10b).911 Animals, mythical creatures and
loutrophoroi (pl. 34a) reappear in reliefs in the fifth century, where they had been carved in
the round earlier.912 All these objects and figures appear as motifs when reliefs rapidly
increase in numbers after the middle of the fifth century. In general, reliefs or stelai with
images of animals seem to have been rare,913 until one considers the stele of a man called
Antiphanes, seemingly undecorated except for the inscription of the name.914 When it was
excavated, the original paint was intact, revealing a rooster, a dog and a snake which are now
no longer visible. Thus, some stelai seem non-figurative, some decorated with incised or
painted geometrical or floral motifs and some seem completely without decoration; but how
many of these had painted depictions which are now lost, like the stele of Antiphanes? 915
Some subjects on votive and sepulchral reliefs of the sixth century return in the next
century. For example, man-and-dog stelai can be found in both the archaic and classical
911
Reliefs with horses or chariots from the sixth century: cat. V 241, Akr. 6866, with charioteer (?),
575-550; dated 525-500: cat. V 242, Akr. 1340, with horse's head; cat. V 210, Akr. 3702, double
relief; cat. V 118, Akr. 1342-3, with charioteer. Cat. V 244, Akr. 289, with woman (Athena?) and
horse; and cat. V 126, Akr. 3706, with man and horse date 500-475. For some of these, the
status as individual votives is contested, and some charioteers may be divine or heroic. Later on,
they are mostly mortals: cat. V 254, NMA 1394, with man and horses; cat. V 246, AM S 1289, with
horseman, both 450-425. Of 425-400: cat. V 253, Brocklesby Park 42, with horseman; cat. V 240,
NMA 1358, Akr. 2966, with two figures; cat. V 233, NMA 1341, with Asklepios and ‘carter’; cat. V
169, Akr. 3360, with horseman; cat. V 166, Akr. 2760, with youth and horse.
912
So-called Lutrophorenstelen: Dehl 1981; cf. Schmaltz 1970, Kokula 1984. Cf. also below n. 933.
913
Cat. G 8, NMA 3709, pl. 36b: a double relief with a lion and lioness from 450-425 is exceptional.
Its function is not quite clear, but almost certainly sepulchral. A relief with a horse’s head, cat. V
242, Akr. 1340 (525-500), considered architectural by some, may be an elaborate marble version
of the terracotta plaques with various decorations which were common in the late sixth century.
914
Cat. G 107, NMA 86. For references cf. Richter AGA, 40 no. 54, figs. 137, 208; Harrison 1956, 34,
44; IG I3 1230; Kaltsas 2001, 60 no. 70.
915
Example of a grave stele with floral design: poros stele cat. G 96, KM P 1133 (600-575, pl. 28a);
st. of Myrte and Pythogeneia, KM 1208, cat. G 119 (425-400). In votives such stelai are rarer: cat.
V 331, EM 6417 (525-500); cat. V 333, EM 5529 (500-475). The painted lekythos cat. G 123, NMA
1698, also has a floral motif (pl. 25c). Cf. Posamentir 2001, 52-64 (fourth-century stelai); pl. 26a.
213
periods (pls. 35c-d, 36a).916 Human figures are popular both in archaic sculpture and in later
reliefs. On votive reliefs, various deities are naturally common, although Athenian patrons
had a favourite in the pantheon in their patron deity.917 The idealised dead populate many
grave reliefs from both centuries. In short, there is some continuity from the archaic to the
classical period, both in the iconography of reliefs proper and in the transference of in-theround genres into relief sculpture. Still, many aspects of the appearance of fifth-century
reliefs differ from earlier ones, which are mostly tall and narrow and have few figures,
especially in the funerary variant.918 Classical grave reliefs become lower and squatter in
shape and can be modest or monumental in size. By contrast, votive reliefs from the archaic
period are generally smaller and wider than early grave stelai.919 They often have crowded
scenes, and this only changes late in the fifth century.920 Grave reliefs show a reverse trend:
those with many figures appear more often in the late fifth century than in archaic times.
An explanation for this development may lie in the purposes of the reliefs. In the
sixth century, reliefs with many figures – as a rule requiring more horizontal space than one
or two figures – are often dedicated to Hermes or the Nymphs, who are depicted in them (pl.
36c).921 Perhaps the shape of the archaic votive reliefs differed from grave stelai because
such multi-figure scenes were popular for dedications, posing different demands to the
composition. A similar case is an archaic relief with a pig sacrifice to Athena; the crowd
916
Compare cat. G 39, AM S 1276a, fr. of stele with man and dog from c. 550-525; and cat. G 40,
AM S 1276b of 525-500, with stelai from the final quarter of the fifth century: of Polyeuktos (cat.
G 43, NMA 773), or cat. G 61, NMA 2894 where two men shake hands while a dog joins the
younger man.
917
Cf. below, p. 219, and the next section for a discussion of deities.
918
The only grave reliefs from the first half of the sixth century which probably were wider than they
appear now are NMA 1772, cat. G 95, of a spear thrower in action, and NMA 38, 83, cat. G 60, of
a diskophoros stepping out for a throw. The ‘Marathon runner’ probably is performing a ritual
dance (Neumann (1979) 31, 39): cf. pelike in Boston, Museum of Fine Arts (1973.88). Its
sepulchral function is not certain, but mostly agreed on.
919
E.g. cat. V 132, Akr. 586-587, see n. 921 below; cat. V 215, Akr. 622, fr. of Hermes rel. (both
575-550); the former has four figures, the latter is badly damaged and only Hermes is
recognisable. Cat. V 209, Akr. 637, male head from rel.; and cat. V 216, Akr. 3705, incised st.
(550-525) are too fragmentary to determine the original proportions or the iconography. Cat. V
241, Akr. 6866 (rel. with horse and charioteer?) could have been a metope, but there is no
connection to a building, so it is considered a votive.
920
The representational worth of the count of figures on reliefs is problematic, since it is impossible
to take broken reliefs into account. Therefore, this part of the data is not further mentioned.
921
Cat. V 132, Akr. 586-7, rel. with the Graces (cf. n. 919); also cat. V 115, Akr. 702, a rel. to the
Graces with no less than seven figures.
214
consists of the entire family of the dedicant, approaching the altar to worship the goddess
(pl. 36d).922 This relief shows what appears to be an innovation in the archaic sculpture of
Athens: the goddess and her worshippers are depicted together, in the same space and
communicating directly.923
After a transitional period in the mid-fifth century, the grave reliefs in this study reemerge along two lines.924 Some classical reliefs contrast with the tall and narrow
monuments of the sixth century in their greater width.925 The examples from the second half
of the fifth century are often of high quality, as illustrated by a double relief with lions, or the
stele of Eupheros (pls. 36b, 37a),926 and frequently depict two or more figures. Among them
are relatively many seated women such as, for example, Ampharete (pl. 37c).927 Sixth-century
grave reliefs usually had had one standing figure and perhaps a small decoration in the
predella or on the base.928 Similarly monumental are sepulchral lekythoi from the late fifth
century.929 At the other end of the spectrum are many grave reliefs produced in or after the
second quarter of the fifth century, modest in appearance as well as in execution (pl. 37b).930
These small stelai often are no more than little pillars with superficially smoothed surfaces
and one or more inscribed names.931 In the last quarter of the fifth century, the differences
922
Cat. 114, Akr. 581: see AMA 304-5 no. 424; Palagia 1995; Trianti 1998, 215-8; Keesling 2003,
119-20 fig. 29.
923
Palagia 1995, who argues that the scene depicts the goddess attending the Apaturia, the festival
of enrollment of the children in the phratry. Cf. below p. 249. An exception may be NMA 36, cat. V
147 (c. 500-475); this may depict Athena and a girl worshipping, or another goddess, or two
women. Some suggest it is a gravestone (e.g. Friis-Johansen 1951, 139-40 fig. 72; Neumann
1979, 35 pl. 18b; Schmaltz 1983, 161 n. 383, pl. 3,2), but the iconography is uncommon for
grave monuments of the archaic period.
924
Tracing the changes in this period is complicated by low preservation rates.
925
Cat. G 76, NMA 2687, the Gorgon stele, has a sculpted Gorgon below the deceased’s feet (575550 ( pls. 34b-c); cat. G 90, NMA 5826, relief with athlete (550-525); and cat. G 84, NMA 31,
relief with man (525-500) has a horseman in paint in the bottom part of the front face.
926
Cat. G 46, KM P 1169 (Eupheros); cat. G 8, NMA 3709 (lions).
927
The stele of Ampharete, KM P 695, cat. G 56: although the other person is the baby who is her
grandchild, the fact that she is seated also requires a wider space. Cf. for interpretations of
women on classical grave stelai: Humphreys 1980, passim; Leader 1997; Stewart 1997, 118-29;
Blok, forthcoming.
928
For bases decorated with carved reliefs, see ns. 370 and 954. For decorated and sculpted
predellas of stelai: above n. 925.
929
E.g. cat. G 31, NMA 835 (pl. 30a); cat. G 7, NMA 1044, cat. G 123, NMA 1698 (pl. 25c); and cat. G
124, KM Mag. 14, all painted with floral motifs and perhaps more.
930
EM 8864, cat. G 144; also the relief cat. G 108, NMA 901: stele of Selino, Mynnaki and Niko.
215
between these modest grave reliefs and the more lavish types become more distinct (pls.
37c-d).932 That is not to say that there was nothing between the two extremes: reliefs of
various sizes, complexity and expense fill the gap.933
Votive reliefs become popular in Athens at a relatively late date, and their rise runs
parallel to an increasing preference to depict Athena. At the end of the sixth century, the
goddess as a recipient of reliefs becomes iconographically (and epigraphically) prominent in
the sculpture record for the first time (tables 7a-b, 10a). The Potter’s Relief (pl. 38a) was
dedicated to Athena but does not depict her: it is one of the most monumental votives from
this period.934 Yet there are also smaller dedications, for example, a relief showing Athena in
her armour.935 At the same time, her iconography becomes more varied. In the relief with the
pig sacrifice mentioned earlier, a family sacrifices a victim in the presence of the goddess
herself. Other scenes in which Athena is depicted in the late archaic period are a
giantomachy, stepping into a chariot, or striding fervently towards a horse.936 Her more
peaceful role of patron of crafts is represented from the beginning of the fifth century
onwards.937 Of the 13 reliefs of this period (table 5a), six can be identified more or less
certainly as Athena’s, most often because she is present in the relief (table 7b).938 The
931
Cat. G 147, EM 1810, Skoteas; cat, G 148, NMA 2588, Nautes; cat. G 159, ML mnd 1795, Manes.
932
Stele of Ampharete, KM P 695, cat. G 56 (pl. 37c); the poor one is of Chareas of Pale, cat. G 74, EM
10221 (pls. 37d-e). Other prominent stelai e.g.: cat. G 55, BM 628 (1805.7-3.183), of Xanthippos;
cat. G 66, ML ma 3063 (MNC 2193), of Erasippos and Meixias. Caution in interpreting this material
is due: larger gravestones were probably more easily discovered – a circumstance illustrated by
the examples from many museum collections. Much poorer were the stelai of Zogros, cat. G 153,
EM 11049; of Xenon and Thoga, cat. G 155, EM 487; of Eumares, cat. G 161, NMA 1795; and of
Apollodoros, cat. G 169, EM 496.
933
Moderate could be considered the st. of Polyeuktos, cat. G 43, NMA 773, pl. 36a; or the st. of
Hermodoros, Mika and Kallistratos, cat. G 58, NMA 885, KM P 287 (Lekythenstele); cat. G 30, NMA
17751, painted st.; cat. G 54, NMA 713, st. of Chairestrate and Lysandros; and cat. G 70, AM S
499, st. of Leandros and Mnesistrate.
934
Cat. V 164, Akr. 1332 / AM I 4571.
935
Cat. V 125, Akr. 121.
936
Giant, cat. V 161, Akr. 120; chariot cat. V 213, Akr. 290-290a, 3532; promachos, although the
identification is based on convention rather than attributes. With horse (only a hoof preserved):
cat. V 244, Akr. 289.
937
Cat. V 227, Akr. V 577, scene with Athena and a craftsman. Like in the relief of the pig sacrifice
(above n. 923), moral and divine realms are intermingled in this relief; the difference is that
Athena’s presence in the workshop could be symbolic rather than literal, while in the pig sacrifice
she is receiving the offering directly.
938
See ns. 936 and 937; also cat.V 214, Akr. 191, 290b.
216
goddess thus becomes the most depicted deity in Athenian votive reliefs quite suddenly
between the final quarter of the sixth century and the end of the archaic period.
In the second and third quarters of the fifth century, little seems to change in reliefs,
although damage often hampers identification of the scenes. The average size of reliefs
decreases and the figures shrink along with their backgrounds. It is not until the final quarter
of the fifth century that the iconography of reliefs really takes a different direction. Athena is
no longer alone in her dominance of the reliefs:939 she is overtaken by Asklepios and Hygieia
(pls. 38c-d).940 Most of their votive stelai are from the Akropolis or the Asklepieion (map 6a),
and almost all of them are in Pentelic marble.941
Among the other immortals depicted in the early fifth century, Herakles is one: he is
carrying a boar upside down, its legs kicking in indignation (pl. 38b).942 Whether he himself
was the recipient of the votive is uncertain. Later reliefs show Asklepios, Demeter and Kore
(table 7b). The two goddesses appear together or individually on reliefs from the second
quarter of the fifth century onwards.943 Artemis features several times on votive reliefs too,
and the nymphs return in the final quarter of the fifth century, three quarters of a century
939
Classical reliefs with Athena: cat. V 158, Akr. 695, ‘Mourning Athena’ relief, c. 475-450; cat. V
251, Akr. 2508, with Athena, c. 450-425. Also e.g. cat. V 245, NMA 4802, with banquet scene,
475-450; cat. V 249, NMA 2544 XD, with woman; cat. V 252, Akr. 2478, with goddess (all 450425) do not even certainly represent goddesses. The article of Vikela (2005) mentions more votive
reliefs from the Akropolis which date around c. 400 BC. Whether these should be included in this
study is doubtful, since most other authors date them to the early fourth century. However, if
Vikela’s dates are correct, Athena would maintain her advantage over Asklepios at the end of the
fifth century. The pieces listed by Vlassopoulou 2005 should also be considered: the overal
impression is that Athena remained popular.
940
Hygieia alone, on one broken example: NMA 1356, cat. V 234 (pls. 38d); Asklepios alone; cat. V
225, NMA 1841; on cat. V 176, NMA 1357 with an unidentified god. On cat. V 261, a double relief
at the Martin von Wagner Museum in Würzburg, Asklepios; on the reverse, Artemis. Asklepios and
Hygieia together six times; e.g. relief cat. V 232, Akr. 1340, with the worshipper (pl. 38c); once
the inscription names Asklepios as recipient, not Hygieia (NMA 1341, cat. V 233). Other deities
and heroes occur with Asklepios on cat. V 243, NMA 1348 (Epione); and on cat. V 263, NMA 1388
(hero). Recently, G. Despinis (AM 2008, 268-99) has made the tantalising suggestion that the socalled Olympias Albani should be identified with a statue of Hygieia described by Pausanias as on
the Akropolis.
941
The marble of one relief in the national museum, NMA 1841, cat. V 225, is fine-grained and
white, and listed as Other Marble.
942
Cat. V 178, NMA 43, with Herakles. Cat. V 147, NMA 36, with a woman and a girl, may possibly
depict a goddess with a worshipper: cf. n. 923. The identity of the figures is uncertain.
943
Cat. V 324, NMA 3572, relief with Demeter and Kore; cat. V 172, Akr. 1348; cat. V 270, AM S
1013 (pl. 6a), both reliefs with Demeter, Kore and Triptolemos; and cat. V 272, AM S 1045, with
Demeter and Triptolemos.
217
after their appearances on archaic reliefs.944 One elaborate, large relief shows Pan in his cave
watching them (pl. 7c).945 Whether Epione should be considered a nymph or a goddess is
unclear; she occasionally joins Asklepios and Hygieia on reliefs (pl. 39a).946 Heroes on fifthcentury reliefs are Triptolemos, who is joined by Demeter and Kore and does not occur on his
own, and perhaps Kephalos, the Athenian hunter who according to myth accidentally killed
his wife Prokris.947 He may be the rural hero depicted on a relief, seated on a rock, a
worshipper standing before him.948
Gods are relatively scarce on votive reliefs, with only 20 appearances against 52
reliefs featuring female divinities in the sixth and fifth centuries (table 7b). Many male deities
on reliefs, e.g. Zeus, Apollo, or Ares occur only once in the record.949 Hermes appears twice
on gravestones, leading the souls of the dead to the underworld.950 Divine beings such as
sphinxes, nymphs and heroes, appear on votive reliefs a total of 90 times, of which 29 are
male and 61 female. Of the heroes, Triptolemos is the only one who is depicted more than
once.951 So, by any standards, mythical men are less popular in relief sculpture than their
female counterparts. This is also reflected by the most favoured individual deities: Athena
leads, followed by Asklepios and Hygieia.952 In this light, the absence of Nike on reliefs is a
944
Cat. V 239, Akr. 2674, with Artemis; cat. V 257, Akr. 3649, double rel. with Artemis and a man? ;
cat. V 261 (cf. n. 940); cat. V 271, Berlin Staatl. Mus. 941, with Artemis; cat. V 325, NMA 1389,
with Artemis, Apollo and Leto. For the nymphs see next note.
945
Cat. V 231, NMA 1329, rel. to Pan and nymphs: for the type see Van Straten 1992, 266. The
patron was a man named Archandros (Larson 2001, 130). Archandros as a hero (see Dates table
ca. 231) is uncertain. Cat. V 194, AM S 1948, is a rel. with youth.
946
Cat. V 233, NMA 1341; and cat. 243, NMA 1348.
947
Cat. V 332, NMA 1460; LIMC VI, 1-6, s.v. Kephalos (E. Simantoni-Bournia) with this myth and an
alternative where Kephalos is abducted by the goddess Eos.
948
The original suggestion that Kephalos is depicted came from Svoronos (1908) II 462-3 no. 158;
others have agreed since (e.g. Karouzou 1968, 132-3 no. 1460).
949
Zeus: cat. V 262, Third Eph. Mag. inv. 5a. Apollo (with Leto and Artemis): cat. V 325, NMA 1389.
Ares (with Aphrodite, Nike or Eros and two worshippers): cat. V 248, Palermo, Mus. Civ. 768. Pan:
see above n. 945.
950
Cat. G 50, NMA 1680. the stele of Aristomache, where she is (probably) led away by Hermes; and
cat. G 59, NMA 4485, the so-called Myrrhine lekythos, where the larger figure of Myrrhine is led
away from her family by Hermes Psychopompos. Four reliefs with Hermes from a small tomb
building in the Kerameikos were not included because of they are architectural. The reliefs are
now in the Kerameikos and National Museum (KM P 789; NMA 89, 2823, 2826): Karusu 1961,
105-6; Kaltsas 2001, 76 no. 117; Bumke 2004, 73 n. 396.
951
For the relevant reliefs see n. 943.
952
Athena, 17 instances; Asklepios 11; Hygieia nine (the latter all 425-400).
218
great surprise, since she had been extremely popular in statuary of the sixth century.953 Why
she is missing from classical votive reliefs is unclear.
Equestrian images are as much favoured in fifth-century relief iconography as they
had been in the sixth century, but apart from a few bases which once carried bronze horses,
their iconography is limited to reliefs in the later fifth century. Horsemen, charioteers and an
occasional single horse appear on 13 votive reliefs and three grave reliefs (table 10b): more
than half of these date from the second half of the fifth century. Admittedly, several bases of
the archaic period had been decorated with images of horses or horsemen (pls. 39b-c).954 But
all in all, the frequency with which horsemen occur as an iconographic motif in the
monuments of this study remains more or less the same in the two centuries. It is interesting
that the iconography remains in use, even if marble equestrian statuary was no longer made.
In short, the great diversity of genres in the late archaic period is replaced by a
predominance of reliefs and (painted) stelai in the fifth century; yet it should be noted that
many of the subjects continue to exist in the iconography of reliefs, and some new subjects
for reliefs are added in the classical period.
M ORTALS AND DEITIES , MEN AND WOMEN
Immortal and mortal realms are iconographically divided in sculpture, whether in the round
or in relief. Sometimes, the boundaries are fluid: a woman without attributes performing
libation could be mortal as well as divine. Still, there are usually reasonable arguments for
one or the other. Thus, 72 figures on votive reliefs can be considered mortals (table 7c) and
so can 123 on grave reliefs.955 The higher number of mortals on funerary monuments and of
953
For the popularity of Nike in sculpture in the round, below p. 221. Nike may appear once on a
votive relief in the Palermo Mus. Civ. 768 (cat. V 248, 425-400). However, the identification is
uncertain: it may be Eros, since the other figures on the relief are Aphrodite and Ares.
954
Two base reliefs: KM P 1001, cat. 26 (pl. 39b); KM P 1002, cat. B 25 (39c). Two grave reliefs of
425-400: cat. G 27, BM M 666; cat. G 164, AM I 1898, Melanopos st.; cat. G 84, NMA 31, painted
horseman on lower part of st. with man in relief (525-500). One votive rel. with horse, of a
different kind: cat. V 233, NMA 1341 worshipper of Asklepios with horse and cart, obviously part
of the man’s living: pl. 39d. Two horsemen on a diskos (cat. G 171, BMFA 1987.621, 525-500, in
paint); lekythos, cat. G 31, NMA 835 (425-400).
955
A problem is the fragmentary state of many reliefs, discussed above, n. 920. For the purpose of
the present analysis, figures have been counted as they are, not as they once were; though this
distorts the image, many reliefs have enough left for reconstruction.
219
deities on votives is a matter of course. On the latter, a majority belongs to the divine realm,
including mythical creatures like sphinxes, giants or satyrs such as Marsyas (table 7b).956
The presence of deities on gravestones was precluded by beliefs on the miasmic
nature of the dead: many deities were to refrain from attending death or the dying.957
Hermes, the guide of souls, is one of the exceptions. One grave relief may depict Aphrodite,
although it is also possible that the deceased is depicted as the goddess; in any case, the
figure seems to be alone in the relief (pl. 40a).958 Most funerary scenes leave no room for the
presence of gods: goodbyes are taken from surviving members of a family, for example by
shaking hands with the deceased, or with a moment of quiet contemplation over a child, a
pet or some precious possession.959 The setting is the mortal world, even if the protagonists
no longer belong to it.
From an iconographical perspective, reliefs stay more or less the same during the
fifth century: mortals’ farewells on gravestones and worship of deities on votives. The latter
can take many forms. If the woman offering a libation (pl. 40b) is indeed Athena, the ritual
makes her close to the mortal world and so perhaps more accessible. Compared to the giantslaying Promachos of the sixth century, the classical Athena is more down to earth.
Admittedly, in the archaic period she was also shown receiving sacrifice from ordinary
families or watching over the work of a mortal craftsman.960 Still, post-Persian portrayals of
Athena in votive reliefs are often more contemplative than earlier ones (pl. 40c).
956
Most of these are on votives. Each figure has been counted separately, also if they are depicted in
a group on one relief. Examples are the giant on cat. V 161, Akr. 121; Marsyas on cat. V 221,
Third Ephoria M 3112; and a sphinx on Akr. 3702, cat. V 210.
957
E.g. Eur. Hipp. 1436-7. Of the 96 occurrences of mythological beings, 7 are on gravestones. For
deities see next note. Two sphinxes on grave relief: cat. G 65, KM P 280, I 192; painted gorgon:
NMA 2687, cat. G 76.
958
Hermes: cat. G 50, NMA 1680; and cat. G 59, NMA 4485, the funerary lekythos of Myrrhine.
Aphrodite, who may be paired with Hermes in the relief: cat. G 51, NMA 3891. One might expect
Hermes to appear on gravestones more frquently than he does in the material, considering his
role of Psychopompos.
959
With a dog (a theme already familiar in the sixth c.): cat. G 61, NMA 2894, two men shaking hands
with a dog at the foot of the younger one; cat. G 42, PM 757 (K 24) the stele of Pamphilos; cat. G
43, NMA 773, the stele of Polyeuktos. With a small child: st. of Ampharete and her grandson, cat.
G 56, KM P 695; cat. G 108, NMA 901, with baby girl Niko identified in the inscription; cat. G 111,
NMA 767, st. of Asia shaking hands with her young son. Two women with a jewellery box on cat.
G 63, 1822, 4452; cat. G 64, NMA 1858; st. of Hegeso, cat. G 62, NMA 3642; with mirror, cat. G
49, KM P 685; with strigilis, st. of Eupheros, cat. G 46, KM P 1169.
960
Pig sacrifice: cat. V 114, Akr. 581. Cobbler’s dedication: cat. V 227, Akr. 577.
220
Other deities can hardly be compared to Athena, because apart from Hermes and Nike, none
of the Olympic gods appear in the sculpture record before the later fifth century.961 Only the
position of Asklepios is perhaps comparable to the ease with which Athena moves in mortal
circles on fifth-century reliefs (table 7b). As was mentioned earlier, the same applies to
statuary: here too, goddesses occur more often than male deities (table 7a). For example, a
seated Kybele dates to the second quarter of the sixth century, a period from which no
sculpted gods survive in Athens.962
Of 22 freestanding statues of goddesses from the archaic period, 15 are Nikai, all of
them in Nike’s distinctive running or flying pose (pls. 41a-b; table 7a).963 Two heads
belonged to statues of Athena, and a seated Athena by the hand of Endoios (pl. 17c) is
described by Pausanias.964 Some Nikai may have been akroteria rather than votives, but either
way Nike statues were very popular dedications in the sixth century, even more so than
Athenas.965 Other in-the-round votive goddesses are lacking among the few votives of the
961
Cat. V 132, Akr. 586, 587, a relief with the Graces, and cat. V 215, Akr. 622, fr. of a relief with
Hermes are dated 575-550; cat. V 115, Akr. 702, a relief with the Graces is dated 525-500. The
very active, running or flying Nikai of the archaic period do not appear in any votives reliefs in
evidence; but Nike too is depicted in more tranquil situations in the classical period: cf. LIMC VI,
s.v. Nike, 850-904 (A. Moustaka for the archaic period, A. Goulaki-Voutina for the classical).
962
Nine statues represent gods and six or seven of those are herms, whose characteristic shape sets
them apart (pl. 40d). Of goddesses, 29 are preserved. From 525-500: cat. V 206, Akr. 638,
Herakles; cat. V 175, NMA 3711, seated Dionysos; cat. V 320, AM S 3477, herm; cat. V 144, Akr.
642, head of herm; cat. V 211, Akr. 170, fr. of herm. From 500-475: cat. V 321, AM S 211, herm;
cat. V 322, Akr. no. ?, miniature Herm; cat. G 323, AM S 730, small bearded head (of herm?). From
475-450 cat. V 250, AM S 218, small bearded head; and from 450-425: cat. V 319, AM S 2452,
herm. Several groups also have divine figures: Theseus and Prokrustes (cat. V 119, Akr. 145,
370); a plinth with possibly Herakles and Kerberos (cat. V 207, Akr. 431); the hippalektryon and
rider (cat. V 127, Akr. 597). The dice game played in Akr. 161 (cat. 146) can possibly be included,
if the players are Achilles and Ajax. All three date 525-500, bringing the total of divine males
from that period to 13.
963
Cat. V 56, AM S 1351. This is excluding a striding figure, which might be an Athena Promachos.
964
Paus. I.26.4: made by him is a statue of Athena seated, with an inscription that Callias dedicated
the image, but Endoeus made it. Cat. V 90, Akr. 625, Endoios Athena. Other votives of 525-500:
striding figure, cat. V 56, AM S 1351; cat. V 37, Akr. 661, Athena; cat. V 137, Akr. 305, fr. of head
of Athena. Of 500-475: cat. V 61, Akr. 140, Angelitos Athena; cat. V 38, Akr. 136, Athena; cat. V
40, Akr. 634, Athena head; cat. V 328, AM S 138, fr. of female figure.
965
For example, cat. V 259, AM S 2476: for discussion see Thompson 1976 (3d ed., text partly by
Harrison) 237-8 fig. 123. She is sometimes interpreted as a kore: Shear, Hesperia 42 (1973)
400-1 pls. 74a-c; Karakasi 2001, 142 pl. 209. For Nike interpretations see Goldberg, AJA 86
(1982) 212 no. N 2.
221
early fifth century.966 After a gap in the middle of the century, the third and final quarter once
more produce goddesses: four statues of Athena, probably one of Aphrodite (pl. 30d) and
perhaps an Artemis.967 With these six examples, this is the only genre in votives to continue
into the late fifth century.968 The unbroken manufacture of goddesses from the sixth to the
fifth centuries, the many sculptures in the round of goddesses from the archaic period and
their frequent appearances on reliefs in the fifth century in comparison to gods testify to
their unwavering popularity;969 of course, this applies in particular to Athena.970
What is true for the divine, however, does not necessarily apply to the mortals in
sculpture. In terms of quantity, the types of statuary which influence the gender ratio of
mortals the most are kouroi and korai (tables 5a, 7d). Their divine or mortal nature has been
much debated over time. It has been convincingly argued that in principle, neither korai nor
966
Four Nikai: cat. V 19, Akr. 690; cat. V 109, Akr. 3731; cat. V 101, Akr. 3512; cat. V 100, Akr.
4328, probably a Nike. For the Athenas see n. 964.
967
From 450-425 date cat. V 5, AM S 1232, torso of Athena; and cat. V 155, Akr. 635, head of
Athena. Cat. V 278, AM S 2094, is a head of a goddess, which one is unclear, but the hair is
arranged similarly to the Artemis of Arriccia (Harrison 1965, 369-70). From 425-400: cat. V 220,
AM S 654, Athena; cat. V 255, AM S 1882, a goddess commonly interpreted as Aphrodite (cf.
among other scholars Harrison 1960, 373-4, pl. 82; Despinis 1971, 188; Ridgway 1981, 111-2;
Rolley 1999, 142 fig. 126); cat. V 327, Akr. 3027, statuette of Athena. Although Nike no longer
appeared in sculpted votives in the round of the late fifth century, architectural decorations such
as those of the temple of Athena Nike on the Akropolis compensated on a grand scale for this
loss (Schultz 2001, passim).
968
Cat. V 9338, EM 6058, frs. of a diskos; and cat. V 160, Akr. 599, archer listed as youth, both date
475-450. Cat. V 163, Akr. 699, head of youth listed as kouros; and cat. V 165, Akr. 1358, Prokne
group, both of c. 450-425; cat. V 256, Akr. 1310, girl listed as a kore, 425-400. All are single
instances of their genre. G. Despinis has argued convincingly that several fifth-century fragments
from the Akropolis (Akr. 7310, 927, 18017 and 3246) would be part of a monument involving an
altar and the figures of Io and Kallisto (Io being the original of the figure known as the
‘Schutzflehende Barberini’, from which the Akropolis fragments would come). Despinis links this
monument to a treaty between Athens, the Arkadians and the Eleans in c. 420 BC, brokered by
Alkibiades. Since this would make it a public dedication, the fragments in question have not been
included in this study.
969
On the reliefs from 425-400, female immortals are depicted 45 times, but male deities 23 times
(table 7b). As explained earlier, the most momentous periods for deities in the round are 525500, with 15 goddesses and nine gods; and 500-475, with nine female deities and 4 male ones.
What the three bronze statues from 425-400 on the bases cat. B 104, AM I 3398; cat. B 143, EM
6296; cat. B 146, EM 6297 would have added to the male or female side cannot be established.
970
See above, n. 895. Vlasssopoulou’s 11 statues or statuettes of Athena from the later fifth century
mentioned earlier confirm that in-the-round sculpture of goddesses, especially of Athena, is the
one exception to the monopoly of reliefs of the late fifth century.
222
kouroi represent divinities.971 If this is accepted, the combined statues of mortals (youths and
girls, horsemen, seated figures and in all likelihood some other sculpted figures) outnumber
deities in both sepulchral and in votive statuary. Among these mortals, korai are most
popular in the archaic period: their large numbers bring mortal women to 109, while only 57
figures are male in the sixth and fifth centuries.972 If the deities, notably Athena and Nike, are
added, the advantage remains with the female figures in the sixth century. By the end of the
fifth century, however, female and male figures end up at a similar level. Considering that
only very few goddesses are preserved in the classical period, the increase in numbers of
male figures must originate in the iconography of reliefs.
Especially in the sixth century, relief iconography had been a male affair (table 7c),
and this pre-eminence stemmed mainly from the gravestones of Athens: all but one of these
depict men.973 The lack of women on grave reliefs does not necessarily mean, however, that
women were not honoured with memorials.974 For example, their grave markers may have
been made in clay, like the loutrophoroi which were set up on graves of those who had died
unmarried.975 Interestingly, after the turn of the sixth to the fifth century, the gender ratio on
reliefs is fairly equal.976 This equilibrium could reflect a shift in practice in the fifth century.
Women might not have been recipients of gravestones before, but might only have become
so in the classical period, explaining their more frequent depiction on classical than on
archaic gravestones. Alternatively, the iconographic tradition could simply have changed, in
that women became the subjects of gravestones, where previously men had been customary,
regardless of who was buried in the grave. In the latter view, both women and men would
have been buried in the plot of their families. The choice of setting up a stone marker was
971
Richter 1968, 3; Schneider 1975, 53; Ridgway 1982, 123-7; more recently Keesling 2003, 10715, who returns to the identity of recipient deities for kouroi and korai. Cf. ch. IV.5, and n. 1155.
972
Children have been counted as a separate category, regardless of their sex, since it is often
difficult to establish whether a child is a boy or girl on the reliefs. In rare cases where an
inscription gives additional information, the children are still listed just as such; but this does not
significantly effect the overall result.
973
Cat. G 113, KM P 1265, is a fragment of an incised stele by Aristokles, depicting a seated woman.
974
Humphreys 1980, passim; Stears 2000, 33-5. Compare below, p. 234.
975
Garland 1985, 72-4, 87-8 also sketches the gaps in our understanding of this tradition. Cf. Rehm
1994, 27, 35-6; Oakley and Sinos 1993, 6. Also D. 44.18, 44.30.
976
On reliefs from 500-475: 5 women, 6 men; 475-450, none; 450-425, 7 women, 3 men; and 425400: 66 women, 61 men. Cf. also Leader 1997; Shapiro 1997, 118-29.
223
optional for the deceased women, as it was for the male dead – or perhaps more so, judging
by the rare gravestones for women from the archaic period.977
In conclusion, the main trend in sculptural genres of the sixth and fifth centuries is one of
decreasing variation, but two factors mitigate this conclusion. First, bases show that some
genres were in the fifth century still made in bronze, when previously they had been carved in
marble.978 Second, preserved reliefs depict a range of figures derived from in-the-round
statuary. Even so, the difference in overall effect of the votive sculpture of the sixth and of
the fifth centuries must have been unmistakable for contemporary Athenians. In the archaic
period, brightly coloured statues had crowded the Akropolis, many of them high up on
columns and pillars or towering by their sheer size. In the fifth century there were large
gleaming bronzes, flanked by marble reliefs and small offerings in terracotta, metal, or other
materials. There are some exceptions to this pattern: the fact that some marble votives
dedicated to female deities are preserved shows that for gifts to goddesses, it remained an
appropriate material in the later fifth century. Furthermore, the iconography of reliefs shows
that Asklepios was a main recipient of this type of dedication in marble at the end of the fifth
century, too, and they continued to be offered in his cult.
In cemeteries, it was mostly the shape and size of grave stelai which changed; the inthe-round genres disappeared there too, but bronze was apparently deemed an unsuitable
alternative. Female figures occur on fifth-century gravestones conspicuously more often than
in the archaic period, but the overall balance of male and female figures on reliefs is quite
even in the late fifth century (table 7c). Paradoxically, the increasing number of women on
classical gravestones does not lead to a real majority, as an equally rising number of men in
grave reliefs redresses the balance.
A gender count of archaic sculpture in the record in general (table 7d) shows more
female than male figures, largely thanks to korai and archaic images of goddesses. The loss
of these female statues from the archaic period takes away the advantage of women in
sculpture. Thus, from a wider iconographic perspective, numbers of depictions of women in
sculpture as a whole do not increase from the archaic period to the classical, but even slightly
977
This phenomenon is related to disjunctive representation in dedications. Cf. below. p. 254.
978
The bases which are not preserved would undoubtedly have changed the picture further, but
there is no point in speculating about this.
224
fall. In contrast, male figures, whether mortals or gods, occur more frequently in the
sculpture of the late fifth century, evening out the numbers.
A final remark regards the korai. They are numerically the second largest genre in
Athenian sculpture from the sixth and fifth centuries, appearing exclusively as votives in the
material of this study. Their influence on the gender ratio is noteworthy. If they are indeed
idealised mortal girls, they bring the statues of mortal women to almost twice the number of
male statues (table 7d). All this happens before the second quarter of the fifth century, after
which no korai are preserved. Yet without them, female statues would not be a third of those
which represent men.979 The Athenian korai are clearly exceptional and their popularity
among the – mostly male – patrons of Athens in the late archaic era is remarkable. This raises
the question whom the korai represent, who offered them and whom they depict; questions
which depend on the relations between patrons, genres and the recipient deities.
4
N AMES
AND THE S TATUS OF P ATRONS
For anyone appreciating the quality of Greek sculpture, it may be hard to imagine someone
other than a refined, wealthy Solonic or Periklean patron behind the exquisite votives and
gravestones of Athens. But besides patrons from the political, social or religious elites of
Athens, there are those who do not to belong to elevated circles: some monuments were
erected by individuals who – judging from the available historical sources – seem to have
been of marginal importance in Athenian society. The question is whether Perikles’ peers
dedicated other kinds of votives and set up different gravestones than others did, who were
poorer or less influential, or who did not qualify for citizenship. Votive and sepulchral
inscriptions may reflect such differences in status among the families, the non-related
groups, or the individual men and women who ordered and set up sculpture in archaic and
early-classical Athens. This section offers an overview of the social backgrounds of patrons,
979
E.g. sculpture from 525-500, discounting the korai: six women, 18 men; 500-475: two women,
11 men. Even in genres the men have a slight advantage, since mortal women were rarely
depicted on horseback, except in the case of amazons; but no sixth or fifth-century examples
have been found in Athens.
225
based on votive and grave inscriptions in the data record of this study, followed by a brief
comparison of epigraphic and iconographic renderings of the patrons of sculpture.980
An important criterion with regard to social (as distinct from economic) status in
sixth and fifth-century Athens was the question whether or not one qualified for citizenship.
Citizenship was based on birth from citizen parents, until Perikles’ citizenship law of 451/0
one (usually the father), and after that date from two Athenian parents. Non-citizens were
excluded from certain activities of the Athenian community, especially political participation,
ownership of real property, most cultic activities and independent action in court. Metics, the
long-term residents in Athens among whom may have been some of the sculptors discussed
earlier, had a specific position of their own. Besides their valuable economic contribution,
they were allowed to participate in important aspects of life in Athens, notably burial rites
and religious festivals.981 Xenoi were not seen as members of the Athenian community at all.
The position of women was equally complex: they were citizens and held important religious
functions, but they did not serve in political or judicial office. Besides the divide of citizens
and non-citizens, other sets of boundaries ran along lines of wealth (as established by Solon,
to designate access to polis offices); of religious privileges, such as the right, based on birth,
to serve in certain priesthoods; or of social distinction, notably descent from aristocratic
families which exerted informal influence on political prominence.
For this study, two questions are relevant with regard to these various groups in
Athenian society. The first is the following: can any of them be seen to exhibit characteristic
behaviour as sculpture patrons? In other words, can any subgroup of those who lived in
Athens be identified because their sculpted votives or gravestones or the corresponding
inscriptions stand out from the rest? The second and subsequent question is this: did those
who belonged to an elite, be it based on wealth, descent, or other criteria, use sculptural
display to compete with their peers, or to impress those below them in social rank?
At this point, some remarks on the various types of names in inscriptions are in order. The
name types which were recorded for this study include single names, ethnica, patronymics
980
The epigraphic material in this study only serves comparative purposes. No attempt has been
made to collect every inscription available. The criterion for selection is the type of statue which
the base once carried. The evidence thus collected is for qualitative analysis only, i.e. a
presentation of individual examples. An estimated overview of trends in total numbers is added
where this is necessary. See above, Introduction, p. 10 and further.
981
For recent overviews of the social status of metics, xenoi and women, and the definition of these
groups in ancient Athens, see e.g. Patterson 2006; Blok 20091 and forthcoming; Wijma 2010.
226
and demotics. Much more complicated than establishing the presence of these types is any
attempt to draw conclusions from them. In principle, demotics only became worth referring
to in name inscriptions with the institution of demes as organisational units by Kleisthenes in
the late sixth century.982 Once the demes assumed their new role, demotics would usually
indicate citizen status. However, the precise procedure of bestowing citizenship in Athens is
unclear. Recently, a persuasive argument has been made that apart from the deme, other
official bodies played major roles in Athenian citizenship.983
An inscribed patronymic says nothing at all about the owner’s civic status, since
patronymics are not a uniquely Athenian, but a normal Greek practice. Only by means of
prosopography can patronymics help to pinpoint people’s identities, and only as a result of
this can their citizen status (or lack thereof) be established. Ethnica, which in the material of
the present study mostly indicate that the person in question came from outside of Athens,
are less ambiguous. That being said, they cannot be considered straightforward markers of
metic status. The persons in question might be xenoi, or on the other hand, some might be
of foreign descent but with privileges, such as the ambassador-like position of a proxenos.984
These examples of the ambiguities of ancient name types show the difficulties in
submitting the data in this study to a prosopographic analysis. As was mentioned in the
introduction of this study, a numerical investigation of the name types in the record would be
purely comparative and qualitative, not only because of the difficulties of this part of the
material, but also because of the selection criteria. That being said, the identity of patrons,
including their civic status and their traceability in Athenian history, can shed light on their
behaviour in the art world. Moreover, even a rough outline of trends in the epigraphic
material is useful in combination with the developments in sculptural genres described
above. Thus, despite the caveat which this part of the investigation requires, some namerelated data will be discussed here, followed by a number of individual cases of those who
ordered sculpture in sixth and fifth-century Athens.
982
Even if they existed in some form before then: see Whitehead 19861; and Wijma 2010, 173-8 for
an overview of pre-Kleisthenic demes and the changes which Kleisthenes made. See also Blok,
forthcoming; and the thesis of D. Kretschmann of the University of Utrecht.
983
The phratries but also the gene: Lambert 1993; Blok 20091, 132-3; ditto 2010.
984
Patterson 20061, 268-70; Blok 2007, 324-5; Wijma 2010, 256-7, 268, for the example of
Pythagoras of Selymbria; cf. also above n. 208.
227
In the inscriptions of Athenian patrons or deceased in the material of this study, 96 names
can reasonably be attributed to citizens (table 9, chart 9).985 Of the names inscribed in bases,
all but one are on votives;986 the most prolific periods are the first and second quarters of the
fifth century. Non-Athenians appear less often than would perhaps be expected, considering
the city’s appeal for craftsmen and traders from elsewhere. However, the status of patrons is
often unclear and metics are undoubtedly among these cases. Only 28 persons are certainly
of foreign descent, again mostly on votives: only six non-Athenians are on sepulchral
bases.987 The base of Anaxilas of Naxos (pl. 50a) or the gravestone of Archetimos of Thasos
(pl. 50b), may have been set up by metic families as well as by Athenian citizens who were
not related to the deceased.988 Most metics seem to have been buried by their kin: the
gravestones of Aischro, daughter of Zoiïlos of Samos, or the one for Alexos of Delos, for
example, do not mention any external patron who commissioned the sculpture.989 Lampito
(pl. 42c) was buried ‘far from the land of her forefathers’.990 In short, it is clear that Athenian
985
Of these 77 are on bases, 13 on votives and six on gravestones. The evaluation of citizen status
was based on LGPN and PAA vol. I-XVI. Only the primary person was counted, so in the case of a
votive set up in someone’s name, that person’s status is listed, not the status of the person who
fulfilled the pledge for him or her. Similarly, of the gravestone it is the deceased who is counted,
although the real patrons are likely to have been others in most cases. For patrons of
gravestones: below p. 233. See also the Personalia field in the database.
986
Funerary inscription from a base dated 550-525: cat. 125, EM 10642, IG I3 1211, for Xenophantes
son of Kleibolos.
987
Non-Athenians: cat. B 249, KM I 426, b. of Alexos of Delos, dated 550-525. Of 525-500: cat. B
12, KM I 189, b. of Aischro daughter of Zoiïlos of Samos; cat. B 127, Third Ephoria M 662, b. of
Leanax son of Heragoreos of Samos; cat. B 16, KM I 388, b. of Anaxilas son of Aristion of Naxos
(set up by Timomachos); cat. B 11, KM I 190, b. of Tymnes son of Skylax of Karia; cat. B 126, EM
10643, b. of Lampito (set up by Philtiades of Samos or Paros). One citizen’s name on funerary
base: Xenophantes son of Kleibolos, cat. B 125, EM 10642.
988
Anaxilas son of Aristion of Naxos by Timomachos (Cat. B 16, KM I 388, IG I3 1357): his epigram
suggests that honour had been bestowed on him by the Athenians on previous occasions, too:
Naxsi/o o(\n ti/eskon A)qenai=oi meta/oikon {5mete/oikon}5 / e)/xsoxa sofrosu/ntej e(/neken e)d / a)rete=j
(…the Naxian whom the Athenians used to honour for his prudence and wisdom; IG I3 1357).
Archetimos (cat. G 121, EM 12842) was in fact a hostage when he died, one of the Thasians who
had to ensure Thasos’ cooperation in the Delian-Attic League after the island attempted to
withdraw in 421: Salta 1991, 169 n. 1718, 171 n. 1742, 181 n. 1854.
989
Aischro, daughter of Zoiïlos of Samos (pl. 1e: cat. B 12, KM I 189) and Alexos of Delos (cat. B 249,
KM I 426). The latter carried a stele; Aischro’s base may be the only to have carried a funerary
kore in Athens (pl. 43b).
990
Cat. B 126, EM 10643, IG I3 1380: e)[nqa/]de Fi=— c. 1O —oj kate/qeke qano=san ⋮ / L[ampi]to\
ai)doi/en ge=j a)p-o\ patroi/ej ⋮ / )/Endoioj e)poi/esen. ‘Here, Phi[--10--]os laid chaste Lampito in the
earth, far from land of her forefathers / Endoios made it.’
228
metics were allowed to bury their deceased relatives in the city’s cemeteries and erect
memorials in their honour.991
Demotics are not clearly attested on the gravestones in this study until the final
quarter of the fifth century (table 9). By then, this situation reverses: 13 citizens out of a total
of 19 appear on gravestones in this period. Citizen status is implied in demotics, but the lack
of one does not always mean the person in question lacks citizenship. Some patrons may
have preferred a single name on their votive or gravestone (tables 9a-b).
Trends in patronymics and demotics on votives and grave monuments are similar to
the patterns in the material as a whole.992 The great majority of patronymics appears on
votive bases in the first quarter of the fifth century, as well as on some basins (table 9a, chart
9a.1).993 Demotics on votives also peak in this period, but on a much smaller scale; and
demotics sustain a similar number in the second quarter of the fifth century. On grave
monuments, patronymics peak modestly at two moments: in the final quarter of the sixth
century and at the end of the fifth century (table 9b, chart 9b.1). Demotics in sepulchral
inscriptions are usually on grave stelai in the later fifth century. The latter are also the main
source of ethnica.994
991
For the issue of how they obtained the land for the grave, see the next section.
992
As noted in a votive context by e.g. Aleshire 1992, 86 (in the Asklepieion at Athens, mainly lateclassical to hellenistic). See also LGPN; Traill PAA.
993
Citizens on votive bases: cat. B 105, EM 10330, for bronze tripod? of Kedeides and Kleisthenes
sons of Autokrates; cat. B 177, Akr. no. ?, for bronze group, by the son of Chaires of Cholarges;
cat. B 143, EM 6296, for bronze statue, by someone from Alopeke; cat. B 176, Akr. 13264, cf. n.
903; cat. B 104, AM I 3398, for bronze statue of Archestratos and A[-------]. Four are on latearchaic basins: cat. B 287, EM 6529, fr. of basin of Komonides, and cat. B 307, EM 6524, fr. of
basin, both 525-500. Of 500-475 are cat. B 279, EM 6527, fr. of basin of Kallisto and cat. B 317,
EM 6522 (and Akr. Q66), frs. of basin of Aristylos. From the later fifth century are some citizens’
names inscribed on stelai: 450-425, cat. B 332, NMA 1460, Demokrates; 425-400, cat. B 233,
NMA 1341, relief with Asklepios, of Antimedon.
994
On gravestones: 13 citizens from 425-400; 20 non-Athenians of which 13 from the same period
and 7 from 450-425. The only sculpted reliefs set up for non-Athenians in this period are that of
Emporion, cat. G 115, EM 6197, with a lekythos and a lyre player on it; and that of Onomastos of
Megara and another man, cat. G 127, AM I 2473, depicting the two men in himatia.
229
The record of this study contains only very few certain ethnica on votives.995 One place
where ethnica are more common are sculptors’ signatures: six of these on votive bases and
one on a funerary base name the sculptor as well as his place of birth, most often Chios and
Paros. Most examples are from the archaic period, which in light of the presumed travelling
habits of archaic sculptors discussed earlier, is to be expected.996 A patron from the deme
Acharnai, obviously a citizen, allowed the Chiot sculptor of his votive, possibly Archermos, to
sign the work with his name and ethnic.997 According to the (rather overly optimistic)
reconstruction by Raubitschek, one sculptor called himself the Athenian.998 It would be an
odd thing to do if he was a citizen.
Not surprisingly, the evidence suggests that demotics were used less often, for only
41 of them appear on extant votives (table 9a) and seven on grave monuments. The
difference mainly stems from the peak in patronymics on votives at the end of the archaic
period (chart 9a.1). Of course, the demotic was a late-comer compared to other name
types.999 From the second quarter of the fifth century onward, however, patronymics and
demotics follow a parallel downward trend.1000 Since most inscriptions are on the bases which
995 Cat. B 84, Akr. 13262, fr. of base of Alkibios the kytharoidos (IG I3 666) dates 500-475. The
identification as a metic is uncertain. Cf. DAA 89-90 no. 84; PAA II, 40 no. 121720; Kissas 2000,
101-2 no. 25. The other two are cat. B 243, EM 6265, fr. of base for Poly[---] son of Cheimerpes
(525-500), and cat. B 255, EM 8169, fr. of pillar for Aristomache, Charikleia, daughters of
Glaukinos of Argos (475-450).
996 Of 550-525: cat. B 125, EM 10642, funerary b. of Xenophantos by Aristion of Paros. Votives, of
525-500: cat. B 3, EM 6241, fr. of column of Iphidike, by Archermos of Chios; cat. B 9, Akr. 6962,
fr. of col., patron from [Achar]nai, by sculptor from Chios. Of 500-475: cat. B 286, Akr. 13639, fr.
of a b. of unknown patron, by sculptor from Chios; cat. B 52, Akr. 6980, fr. of col. of unknown
patron, by Diopeithes or Euthykles of Athens (Muller-Dufeu 2002, 261-7 no. 603). Of 475-450:
cat. B 19, EM 12851, fr. of col., of [Prospa]ltios, by a sculptor from Paros. Cf. above ch. II.3,
especially p. 116-3.
997 Cat. B 9, Akr. 6962, see n. 996. This requires further investigation, also beyond Athens. It would
be interesting to know whether this was exceptional generosity of the Acharnian patron, or
common leeway given to well-respected sculptors, or even to sculptors in general in the archaic
period.
998 Diopeithes, cat. B 107, EM 6360, 6452 (a-c), 6493 (d), IG I3 652, 525-500: the patron was one
Onesibios. Cf. Kissas 2000, 275 no. 57; LGPN II, 352; DAA 109-10 no. 107; PAA XIII, 482 no.
745900; Künstlerlexikon I 180.
999 The official status of metics was probably introduced in the 470s BC. See above n. 981.
1000 Both name types have three examples in the final quarter: two of these have both also the
patronymics: cat. B 176, Akr. 13264, of Chairedemos son of Euangelos of Koile; and cat. B 177,
Akr. no. ?, fr. of base for bronze group of the son of Chaires of the deme Cholarges. Cf. n. 993.
230
all but disappear in the late fifth century, such decreasing numbers are to be expected.
Inscriptions on reliefs and stelai compensate somewhat, especially in sepulchral inscriptions.
Inscriptions sometimes show something of the relations between those mentioned, in
particular the ratio of male and female patrons and beneficiaries.1001 Women at first glance
seem to have dedicated only rarely on the Athenian Akropolis or in other sanctuaries of
Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries.1002 Only 15 votive inscriptions in the record mention a
female dedicant (table 9, chart 9a.2). However, though this number is small, it is not
negligible in comparison to other groups. Most of the dedicatory inscriptions of Athenian
women date to around the turn of the sixth to the fifth century, with four examples from the
late sixth century and eight from the first quarter of the fifth. An example is the pillar for a
small bronze offered by Heido (pl. 41c).1003 Other female patrons from the final decades of
the archaic period include Iphidike, who set up the impressive Nike Akr. 693 on a column (pl.
20a); Phileia, the daughter of Chairedemos of Athmonon who dedicated a bronze statue as a
tithe ‘of the land’ to Athena; Kallikrite, whose first fruit was paid for from her own business
(pl. 26d); Phryne and Smikythe, who together set up a bronze statue to Athena; and Kallisto
and another Smikythe (or perhaps the same), two washerwomen whose earnings paid for
dedications of basins.1004
1001 On joint dedications cf. Löhr 2000, passim; Keesling 2005, 398-407; Blok, forthcoming.
1002 Cf. Keesling 2003, 117-21 and passim; Blok 20091, 131-2; Blok, forthcoming.
1003
Bases dedicated by women in 525-500: cat. B 232, Akr. 9955, by Ergokleia, frs. of pillar for
bronze statue (animal); cat. B81, EM 6250, of Psakythe, fr. of base for bronze group (statuettes);
cat. B77, D EM 6242, of Thearis daughter of Kortynios (or Thraichs, his son: cf. LGPN, 227 (2);
DAA 82-3 no. 77; PAA IX, 40 no. 501960; cf. vol. IX 323 no. 516200), fr. of base for bronze
statue (horseman?). Of 500-475: cat. B 250, Akr. 6502, of Heido, fr. of pillar for bronze statuette;
cat. B 201, EM 6401, of Myrrhine, daughter of [----]drio?, fr. of pillar for marble statue. Cat. B 79,
EM 6301, of Aristomache and Archestrate by their father Kynarbos son of Li--- ?, fr. of base for
bronze group (two statuettes) is dubious: Kynarbos may have fulfilled a vow for his daughters:
listed here as the women’s. Cf. Kissas 2000, 99-100 no. 22; LGPN, 58 (2), 69 (1), 277 (1); DAA
84-5 no. 79; PAA III, 169 no. 172325 (Arist.), ibid. 352 no. 210755 (Arch.); vol. X, 639 no.
588705 (Kyn.).
1004
Cat. B 3, EM 6241, Iphidike (Nike: cat. V 97, Akr. 693, 525-500; base: cat. B 3 EM 6241, IG I3
683); cat. B 191, EM 6385, Phileia; cat. B 38, Akr. 607, Smikythe. The latter may of course be the
same as: cat. B 93, EM 12780 (a), 6383 (b), Phryne and Smikythe. All except Iphidike’s dated 500475. Kallisto’s basin, cat. V 279, EM 6527; and cat. V 299, EM 6541, 5503, 13389, of Kallikrite,
have the same date. The latter’s first fruit (cf. IG I3 921) is intriguing because it suggests she had
an independent profession. The inscription on Phileia’s monument (IG I3 800) is somewhat
dubious: ta)qenai/ai deka/thn xorio/w A)qmono/qen may refer to a tithe of the land, Athmonothen
being simply (an admittedly) early demotic, but it could also mean ‘the land at Athmonon’, i.e. a
geographical indication. The archaic form of chorioo points at the eastern Greek sphere,
231
In the fifth century, especially after the first quarter, few female dedicants feature in votive
inscriptions (chart 9a.2).1005 One may record a metronymic: a base for a marble statue offered
by Myrrhine daughter of [----]drio.1006 The use of cases, the state of preservation and the
lettering prevent a certain reconstruction, but if some of these are indeed entirely female
offerings, the ladies must have had ample means at their disposal. In fact, none of the
women’s dedications are below par in any way; only their numbers are small.
Family inscriptions often include women, and many votives are joint gifts by
husbands and wives or other family members.1007 They offer a unique insight in the personal
side of votive practices: if the occasion arose, vows had to be fulfilled by relations, whether
the rest of the family had agreed in advance to do so or not.1008 Kynarbos set up a votive
after a vow by his daughters (pls. 48a-c), while Etearchos complied with a promise made by
his father, and erected a bronze horse or horseman on a pillar.1009 A bronze tripod was
offered by Kedeides and Kleisthenes for their father Autokrates, and a marble statue by the
children of a man called Chromonides or Chromon (pl. 42a).1010 In gravestones such
monuments are more frequent (table 9b, chart 9b.2), in particular because families were
legally required to give their deceased a proper burial.1011 It is perhaps not very likely that
coinciding suggestively with the Samian fastening technique in the base. The letter-cutter, smith
or sculptor, or one and the same craftsman in all tasks, may have been from the East, or the
patron and her family may have been granted land in Athmonon after they immigrated to Athens.
DAA 225-6 no. 191; Kissas 2000, 133 no. 65; LGPN II, 447 (2), 469 (17).
1005
Only two of 475-450 cat. B 255, EM 8169, by Aristomache and Charikleia, daughters of Glaukinos
of Argos, fr. of pillar for marble stele; cat. B 203, EM 6253, [M]ikythe and her children, fr. of pillar
for marble stele. One of 450-425: cat. B 39, EM 6326, Eumelides’ of Sphettos wife, fr. of pillar for
a bronze vessel.
1006
Cat. B 201, EM 6401; see above n. 1003.
1007
A recent study by Keesling (2005) shows that perhaps more could be found among the epigraphic
material. Also Löhr 2000; Parker 2005, 47-9 gives an overview of joint dedications. Van Straten
1992, 276-83 argues that women’s votives are in principle family offerings.
1008
See e.g. Keesling 2005, passim; Blok 20091, 131.
1009
Alkimachos’ vow is not further specified; Kynarbos for Aristomache and Archestrate, cat. B 79, EM
6301, IG I3 745; Etearchos for his father, cat. B 220, Akr. 13394, 15736, IG I3 659.
1010
Kedeides and Kleisthenes: cat. B 105, EM 10330 (cf. below n. 1033); Etearchos, cat. B 221, Akr.
13394, 15736 (b: formerly EM 6434); the children of Chromon: cat. B 228, Akr. 6973. A base for a
bronze statue was set up by the parents of an unknown person: cat. B285, Akr. Mag. 13396. Cf.
Kynarbis’ and his daughters, n. 1009.
1011
D. 43.57-8; for an overview of this and other sources, Patterson 2006, passim; cf. below p. 276.
232
gravestones were thought of as a mandatory part of the arrangements, since more of them
would probably have been preserved in that case.1012
Most grave inscriptions which explicitly declare that someone set them up for
another person or other persons date from the sixth century.1013 Considering that this must
have been common in gravestones – many deceased may not have made arrangements in
advance – the number is surprisingly low. Perhaps the need to mention the patron of a
gravestone in its inscription was not felt by everyone. Especially when children died,
inscriptions can poignantly express the parents’ grief. Smikythos was evidently a young child
when he died, for ‘by dying, he killed a loved one and the hope of good’.1014 Passers-by of
Tettichos’ grave are called upon to reflect on the misery of losing him and act well in
compensation (pl. 42b).1015
Deceased and patron are not always related by blood, however. There are a few cases
in which a friend or partner donated the gravestone. The inscription on the gravestone set up
by Philtiades of Samos or Paros to commemorate Lampito, for example, does not clarify the
relation (pl. 42c). Perhaps he was her husband and the Athenian of the two. This could
explain why the epigram says that Lampito was buried ‘far from the land of her
forefathers’.1016 An endearing case is a small gravestone from the final quarter of the fifth
1012
This will be further discussed in the next section.
1013
Eight from the sixth c., one from the fifth. For Chairedemos, set up by his father (cat. B 188,
NYMM 16.174.6, with st. NYMM 12.158, 575-550). Of 550-525: cat. B 125, EM 10642,
Xenophantos by his father Kleibolos, probably a kouros; cat. B 159, KM I 424, st. for Aisimides by
his mother (!). Four from 525-500: cat. B 16, KM I 388, seated fig. for Anaxilas son of Aristion of
Naxos, by Timomachos; cat. B 126, EM 10643, st. for Lampito by Philtiades of Samos or Paros;
cat. B 153, EM 6691, st. for Xenophantos by his father. Cat. B 134, Third Ephoria no. ?, is a base
for seated figure for Oinanthe, daughter of Apsynthian? Hede/ Apsinthie, by her husband or
father Opsios: the relations are difficult to establish. For cat. B 12, KM I 189, below n. 1019.
1014
Cat. B 142, KM I 327, IG I3 1219, b. for a stele: oi)kti/ro prosoro=[n] / paido\j to/de se=ma qano/ntoj /
Smiku/q[o], ho/j te fi/lon o)/lese- / n e)/lp’ a)gaqe/n: ‘This nearby monument is of the lamentable
deceased child, Smikythos, who (by dying) killed a loved one and the hope of good.’
1015
Cat. B 29, KM I 10650, IG I3 1194bis, b. for a stele: [ei/)te a)sto/]j tij ane\r ei)/te xe/noj / a)/loqen
e)lqo/n⋮ / Te/tixon oi)kti/raj a)/ndr’ a)gaqo\n pari/to⋮ / e)n pole/moi fqi/menon, neara\n he/ben
o)le/santa⋮/ tau=t’ a)podura/menoi ne=sqe e)pi\ pra=gm’ a)gaqo/n: ‘Whether coming as a citizen or as a
stranger from somewhere else, let anyone pass after having lamented Tettichos, a good man, who
died in battle, after having lost tender youth. Once you have lamented all this, apply yourself to
something good.’
1016
Cat. B 126, EM 10643: IG I3 1380; Jeffery 1962, 130 no. 24; PAA XI, 28 no. 601515; Kissas 2000,
66 no. 36. e)[nqa/]de Fi--c.10--oj kaqe/ke qanosan ∶ / L[ampi]to\ ai)doi/en gej a)po\ patroi/¬ej ∶ /
)/Endoioj e)poi/esen.
233
century, which one Euthylla set up for a Biote: the epigram relates that Euthylla and Biote
were good friends and that the dead woman will be missed dearly; yet they were not blood
relations (pl. 42d).1017
Two more women’s names on grave monuments, Kleito (pl. 43a) and Melissa, date
from the third quarter of the sixth century1018 and from the final quarter are another two
women’s memorials, one of which was for Aischro, set up by Zoiïlos of Samos, probably the
girl’s father.1019 Interestingly, this is the only base from the city of Athens for a woman where
the gravestone may have been a kore (pl. 43b). A monument to a woman named Menestho
was erected in the third quarter of the fifth century, but only at the end of the fifth century do
women’s names occur in substantial numbers on gravestones (table 9b).1020 However,
compared to other categories of names in the record, such as single names of men (without
patronymics or demotics), the number of women’s names on gravestones is quite large early
on (table 9b, chart 9b.2). The increasing frequency of women’s names in the later fifth
century is paired with their more regular appearance on grave reliefs. Moreover, Euthylla’s
stele for Biote suggests that some women were independent patrons of sepulchral sculpture.
It may not have been common, but it did happen.
Besides the occasional woman setting up a gravestone for another woman, a few
examples of women commemorating men also survive. Such cases are the grave stele of
Aisimides, and one of an unknown Olympic victor, whose name is too damaged to restore.
Both were set up by the men’s mothers.1021 The gravestone for the Olympic victor (pls. 43c-
1017
Cat. G 149, EM 8852. Pisth=j h(dei/aj te xa/ri-n filo/thtoj e(tai/ra / Eu)/qulla sth/lhn th/nd’ e)pe/qhke
ta/fwi sw=i, Bio/th: mnh/mhn ga\r a)ei\ dakruto\n e)/xosa / h(liki/aj th=j sh=j klai/ei a)pofqime/nhj.
Because of your true and sweet love, your companion, Euthylla, has placed this stele on your
grave, Biote; she remembers you forever in her tears and weeps for the youth you lost.
1018
Cat. B 154, EM 13486 for Kleito (the name is contested: it could theoretically be the genitive of a
man’s name; because there is only one word, it may well a genetive as well as a nominative:
Jeffery 1962, 131 n. 27; IG I3 1209; LGPN, 265 (1); PAA X, 436 no. 576250; Kissas 2000, 38-9 no.
3). Melissa’s monument is cat. B 265, KM no. ?, IG I3 1205. Both are bases for stelai.
1019
Cat. B 12, KM I 189, pl. 1e, for Aischro daughter of Zoiïlos of Samos, IG I3 1366, had a marble
statue. Of cat. B 134, a base at the Third Ephoria no. ? for Oinanthe (?), the family relations are
much debated. See Clairmont, GE 15 n. 13; Viviers 1992, 133-9); Ridgway ASGS, 294-5; LGPN,
348 (1), 85 (1), 355 (2); PAA XIII, 423 no. 740735 (Oin.), 552 no. 751295 (Op.).
1020
Namely, 30 times in 425-400. Menestho’s monument is cat. B 128, EM 10254. It had a statue of
uncertain material and genre. Menestho may also be the genetive of Menesthos, in which case the
deceased would be a man. IG I3 1302; LGPN II, 307 (2); Traill PAA XII, 234 no. 645225.
1021
Aisimides: cat. B 159, KM I 424, b. for stele. The reconstruction of the name is not entirely
certain, and it could perhaps have had a female ending as well; but the mother’s role is
234
d) should be seen in light of the high status of such victories. In fact, it is surprising that
there are not more gravestones which mention athletic victories in the record.1022 Memorials
for successful athletes in other (or unspecified) games are preserved in somewhat larger
quantities. The dedication of presumably Kroisos and of Alkmeonides, the sons of Alkmeon,
offers thanks to Athena for a victory in horse-racing (pl. 44a).1023 They were probably
members of the illustrious family of the Alkmeonidai, although there is no definite proof for
this.1024 Other famous victors in the fifth century are Pronapes of Prasiai, whose career will be
discussed further down, and the two Kalliases: the son of Hipponikos, whose family was so
wealthy it aroused suspicion,1025 and the son of Didymias, who offered a large circular base
for a victory in the Panathenaia.1026 He is also known from an honorary inscription in
unmistakable. Cf. Jeffery 1962, 119-20 n. 7; Kissas 2000, 40-1 no. 5; LGPN, 14 (3); PAA I, 246
no. 114447. Olympic victor: cat. B 263, KM I 322, b. for stele of [---]kles, with epigram (IG I3
1213). Jacob-Felsch 39 n. 124.1; Kissas 2000, 48-50 no. 16. For the identity of this person see
below n. 1057; also APF 372, no. 9688 (III); Hansen, Kadmos 13 ( 1974), 156; McGowan 1995,
615 n. 2; Willemsen 1963, 105, 110-1 no. 2.
1022
Athletic dedications are cat. B 225, EM 6222, fr. of base for bronze vessel, by [Krois?]os and
Alkmeo[ni]des, sons of Alkmeon, 550-525, for pentathlon and horse racing; perhaps cat. B 120,
Akr. 13248, for Epicharinos son of Oph[ol]o]nides; and cat. B 174, Akr. 13172, for Pronapes of
Prasiai son of Pronapides. Many votive or grave reliefs of which the beneficiary is no longer known
have images with sports attributes and may well represent athletic victors. E.g. of 575-550, cat. G
60, NMA 38, 83 relief with a diskophoros. Of 550-525: cat. G 90, NMA 5826, relief with an
athlete (holding an aryballos). Eupheros (cat. G 46, KM P 1169, c. 450-425) holds a strigilis, which
could also be a sign of sportsmanship. The ball-player base (cat. B 27, NMA 3476), which carried
a kouros, is of course sports-related. It carried a kouros, and if it was for an olympianikos, kouroi
may have served as funerary monuments for athletes too. See below p. 265.
1023
Cat. B 225: EM 6222, IG I3 597. Cf. previous note and below n. 1046. For the inscription see the
database on the cd-rom.
1024
The reconstruction of the inscription is stretched, but not unlikely. Willemsen has suggested that
a gravestone discussed below (n. 1046) would be for Megakles, the father of Alkmeon. Date-wise
this is possible, but Davies (APF 372) criticises the lack of evidence. Cf. DAA 338-40 no. 317;
LGPN, 274 (1); PAA X, 597 no. 586056 (K.), vol. II, 53 no. 122480 (A.). Another dedication of
Alkmeonides son of Alkmeon in the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoös in Boeotia commemorates a victory
in a chariot race at the Panathenaia: Jeffery (LSAG 73) suggests that he lacked time to set up a
votive in Athens because he was forced to leave after Peisistratos’ accession in 546 BC; though
tempting, this cannot be proven. Cf. Friednländer 1948, 154 no. 167.
1025
See also below ns. 1058-1059.
1026
Cat. B 164, Akr. 13255. DAA 181-4 no. 164; IG I3 893; Kyle 1987, 202-3 A29; LGPN, 245 (13),
114 (1); PAA, X, 53 no. 553780. No APF listing; but he was probably ostracised at some point
which might explain the loss of wealth and power. The base may have been set up close the place
where it was found, near the Propylaia on the Akropolis, for an incision in the ground exactly
matches its diameter.
235
Olympia, where he won in pankration. The bronze statue celebrating this victory he had made
by an Athenian sculptor named Mikon.1027
Victory dedications are private in the sense that individuals donated them and often
paid the cost, but at the same time they had a high public visibility. The right to set up a
monument with the winner’s name was part of the prize.1028 A similar construction applied to
military commanders who were successful in battle, for example, the hipparchoi of Athens,
and to choregoi who had won first prizes with their plays in one of the dramatic festivals of
Athens.1029 A memorial in the latter category is a base for a tripod dated to the first quarter
of the fifth century; its epigram has caused much debate.1030 In the hexameters, the dedicant
honours the talent of the men of the chorus, who either were ‘of various tribes in Athens’, or
from ‘outside of the tribes’, that is, non-Athenians.1031 This may suggest that metics who had
participated in a theatrical festival at Athens could commemorate their victory with a public
offering, like Athenians could; but such flexibility on their part is not confirmed by ancient
sources.1032 The interpretation of the men from the text as ‘from many tribes’ ties in with
1027
IG I3 1473, dates the Olympian inscription tentatively c. 470-460. That would be early to match
cat. B 164, as Raubitschek (DAA 183-4) notes, but it not impossible. Cf. above n. 790.
1028
Kyle 1996, 106-7; Osborne 20042, 217, 207 (for cash prizes at the Panathenaia); also Slings
2005, 46-7 (‘prizes’ in the choral agon); Smith 2007, 95 (Olympia).
1029
Tripods won in a dramatic contest were dedicated to Dionysos at the victor’s cost (Csapo and
Slater 1995, 141; Slings 2005, 43-7). For an overview of choregic dedications in classical times
see Goette 2007, 122-30. Also Osborne 20042, 217; Wilson 2000, on the choregia in general.
1030
Cat. B 202, EM 6395, 6694, 13254, frs. of support for bronze the tripod mentioned in the
inscription, dated 475-450. Cf. DAA 345-6 no. 323; IG I3 833bis.
1031
The victor’s name is too damaged for reconstruction: [_]raj ho[..5..]ton A)qe/nes[in xo]ro@i a)ndro@[n]/
[_]tej sof[i/ej] to/nd’ a)ne/qe[k]en ho/ron / [euxs]a/meno[j: p]lei/stoij de\ [x]oroi@j e)/xso kata\ fu@[la] /
[a)nd]ro@n ni[ke@]sai fesi\ p[er]i\ tri/podoj. ‘The victor has dedicated this marker, having promised it,
[as a reminder] of the talent of the men of the chorus at Athens. He has won the contest for the
tripod among very many men's choruses outside of (echso) the organization in tribes.’ Or:
‘…among very many men's choruses of outsiders, tribe by tribe, to have won the contest for the
tripod’ (Slings 2005). The interpretation hinges on e)/xso kata\ fu@la. Regarding the epigram’s
authorship and metre, see Slings 2005, 57-8. Contra Papalexandrou 2005, 10 [his translation
listed in the database, Bases table].
1032
What little evidence for foreign participation in the Attic choregia exists is problematic, and often
late. Metics were allowed to perform certain choregia or sing in the chorus (Whitehead 1977, 70;
Csapo and Slater 1995, 138-9), but not at all festivals. The Lenaia permitted foreigners to serve
as choregoi (Kindermann 1979, 17), but at which time this was instigated is unclear (PickardCambridge 1988, 40-1 ref. to Schol. Ar. Plu. 953, but he explains that in another source (Ar. Ach.
504), the Lenaia had ‘no strangers or allies present’. Several authors cite a rule that anyone may
‘remove any foreigner participating in a chorus’, let alone acting as choregos (Wijma 2010, 124;
Csapo and Slater 1995, 153 no. 105: And. 4.20-1, Against Alkibiades), which is perhaps a later
236
later choregic dedications, such as one offered by Kleisthenes of Aigeis and Kedeides of the
tribe Erechtheis (pls. 44b-c),1033 and a very fragmentary inscription for the choregoi of
Antiochis, Aristeides and Archestratos.1034
Choregic monuments celebrate a common victory through sculpture. They advertise
cooperation between people from different political units even in the face of fierce tribal
competition which apparently characterised the choregia.1035 These inscriptions convey some
socio-political awareness: the contributing tribes set aside their differences to win a choregic
competition, and they commemorated this in sculpted and inscribed monuments.1036
Among the best preserved dedications of hipparchoi, the leaders of the Athenian
cavalry,1037 is the base of Lakedaimonios, Xenophon and Pronapes, in office some time in the
third quarter of the fifth century: a bronze group of a man leading a horse.1038 The first
dedicant, Lakedaimonios of Lakiadai, was the ominously named son of Kimon. He also
appears in a public inscription from the third quarter of the fifth century, and according to
forgery. The authors note that Demosthenes (21.147) also mentions it (cf. Wijma 2010, 123-4).
The submittal of plays by foreigners seems to have been no problem (e.g. Whitehead 1977, 70,
for a play by Ion of Chios competing with Euripides’ Hippolytos in 428; for an overview see Wijma
2010, 126-7). Cf. Osborne 20042, 218-21). Wijma makes a convincing case in her dissertation
(2010, esp. 88-104 and 123-8) for the participation of metics in various activities of choregic
festivals, and calls for caution in interpreting the evidence as a wholesale dismissal of any role of
metics in choregic liturgies. In the City Dionysia this is quite improbable, and in the Lenaia a
limited role in the festival, if not in the choregic competition, is likely.
1033
Cat. B 105, EM 10330, IG I3 965: Kleisqe/nhj e)xore/ge Au)tokra/toj / /Erexqhi+/di Aighi+/di /
Kedei/dhj e)di/daske. It dates c. 475-450; this is admittedly earlier than the other preserved
choregic inscriptions are dated.
1034
Cat. B 104, AM I 3398, IG I3 962 (cf. IG II2 3027), 425-400. The reconstruction is derived from a
literary source rather than legible in the remains of the inscription, namely of the fifteenthcentury AD author Cyriacus of Ancona, who describes the piece and lists as winners Aristeides
and Archestratos of the tribe (?) Antiochis, and as the musician a man called [-----]stratos. Cf.
LGPN, 52 (89); Meritt 1954, 249-50; PAA III, 360-1 no. 211315 (Archestratos). There are further
examples of choregic monuments not included in the database because they lacked information
on the statue, e.g. IG I3 957-968 and IG II2 3027-3063.
1035
As, for example, described in Plu. Cim. 8.7. Cf. Wijma 2010, 124.
1036
Later, the appointment of choregoi was no longer performed by the archon but by the tribal
organisations: Ath. Pol. 56.2-3; cf. Csapo and Williams 1995, 143-4; Osborne 20042, 217-8.
1037
Cat. B 141, EM 5527 (450-425), was probably the monument of a hipparchos, but its fragmentary
state leaves little to go on. It carried a bronze vessel or tripod, and was set up in on the Akropolis.
1038
Cat. B 135, Akr. no. ? The dedication of Lakedaimonios, Xenophon and Pronapes is IG I3 511;
Davies APF 306, no. 8429 XIII, 199 no. 5951, 471 no. 12250; LGPN II, 267 (3), 347 (35), 380-1
(3); DAA 146-7 no. 135.The occasion for the offering of ‘the spolia of the enemy’, is unclear. For
the translation see database, Bases table.
237
Plutarch, he was hipparchos in the 450s or 440s, and later became a general.1039 Xenophon
of Melite is mentioned by Thucydides: he became a general in 441/0 BC and served at Samos
in the following year as well as at Potidaia.1040 Pronapes of Prasiai not only dedicated this
monument but possibly also a base for a bronze four-horse chariot.1041 Apparently he was a
passionate horse-breeder, an occupation for which notoriously large resources were
required. He won prestigious races at Nemea, Isthmia and at the Panathenaia, and may have
been among the prosecutors of Themistokles in c. 470 BC.1042 The monument of these three
hipparchoi is prominently signed by the sculptor, including his demotic: Lykios of Eleutherai,
son of the sculptor Myron and an Athenian citizen himself.1043 That public figures of high
stature allowed the sculptor such a conspicuous signature is interesting.
Dedications by identifiable patrons from the liturgical class occur neatly distributed
over time, once it becomes possible to trace them around the mid-sixth century.1044 Of about
30 monuments in the record, the patrons might be from liturgical families, in most cases
pentakosiomedimnoi.1045 Apart from the two offerings involving the families of Xenophon,
1039
IG I3 48bis line 12, 364.8; Plu. Per. 19.1; general in 433/2.
1040
Thuc. 2.70; 2.79.1-7. He may be the Xenophon son of Euripides mentioned in IG I3 48 line 45. He
died in 429.
1041
Cat. B 174, Akr. 13172, IG I3 880, above n. 1023. He and his family are discussed in APF 471 no.
12250; also DAA 205-7 no. 174; Jacob-Felsch 1969, 179 cat. II no. 71, 52 n. 157; LGPN, 380-1
(3); PAA XIV, 451 no. 789555 (possibly 789545, 789550 and 78575 as well).
1042
When his children had inherited his – considerably diminished – fortune, they defended him to the
Athenian demos: although a fanatical horse racer and a decadent, he spent nine talents and two
thousand drachmai on liturgies and another seven talents on trierarchies (Lys. 19.19). His role as
prosecutor of Themistokles may be what is referred to in the apocryphal letters of Themistokles,
Themist. Ep. 8. See Rosenmeyer 2006, 63.
1043
See also above p. 163.
1044
On votive bases, once from 550-525 (cat. B 225, EM 6222), twice from 525-500 (cat. B 5, Akr.
124; cat. B 6, EM 6243, Akr. 3850) and nine times from 500-475. From 475-450 there are five
likely examples; cat. B 34, EM 6354; cat. B 47, EM 6375; cat. B 114, EM 433; cat. B 120, Akr.
13248; cat. B 218, EM 6353); four from 450-425; cat. B 132, Akr. 13201; cat. B 135, Akr. no. ?;
cat. B 136, AM I 5128; cat. B 174, Akr. 13172) and two from 425-400: cat. B 104, AM I 3398; cat.
B 105, EM 10330. For inscriptions on sculptures see next note.
1045
This out of a total of out of 96 names of citizens in inscriptions. Of these 30, 23 dedicatory
inscriptions on bases probably name patrons who belonged to the liturgical class; four appear on
votive basins, namely cat. V 287, EM 6529, fr. of basin of Komonides; cat. V 333, EM 5529, st. or
plaque of [Hab]ronichos; cat. V 332, NMA 1460, st. of Demokrates; cat. V 233, NMA 1341, rel. to
Asklepios, by Antimedon. On gravestones, all of 425-400, three women from prominent families
are: cat. G 59, NMA 4485, Myrrhine’s lekythos; cat. G 62, NMA 3624, Hegeso rel.; cat. 166, AM I
1392, for […s] wife of K[…] of Oio of the phyle Hippo]tho[ntideis]?, cippus stele: she was from a
238
Lakedaimonios and Pronapes, at least fifteen votives by leisure-class Athenians appear in the
material, almost all of them from the Akropolis. The first dedicants of which historical
records exist are Alkmeonides and Kroisos, mentioned earlier.1046 From the next quarter
century is the statue of a scribe (pl. 44d-e) set up by Alkimachos son of Chairion. He was
probably the treasurer of Athena around 550 BC, but unfortunately little is known about him
or his family except for the pride in his father’s name expressed in the inscription, and that
he was wealthy enough to fulfil this office.1047 Mechanion grammateus, another secretary,
dedicated a basin in the second quarter of the fifth century, of which the pedestal remains
(pl. 46b). Grammateus most likely refers to an office perhaps also in the service of Athena. If
so, this is the fifth-century version of the dedication of Chairion. Yet Mechanion’s basin is a
much simpler type of votive than Chairion’s statue of a scribe.1048
From the final quarter of the sixth century is the votive of Mnesiades the potter and
Andokides, a pillar with a bronze statue on the top. The former is unknown, but Andokides
may have been a pentakosiomedimnos, a tamias to Athena around the middle of the sixth
century.1049 If this is true, the combination with a potter is very odd, and perhaps the deme
hippeis family. Cat. G 164, AM I 1898, Melanopos (and Makartatos?) may be mentioned by
Pausanias (I.29.6) but the reconstruction is very uncertain.
1046
See above p. 235. Cat. B 225, EM 6222: the names are over-restored, but if correct, Alkmeonides’
father Alkmeon is the son of Megakles (I), who was archon in the late seventh century. The
gravestone KM I 322 (cat. B 263, above n. 1021) has also been attributed to this family, namely to
Megakles himself (Willemsen 1963, 105, 110-1 no. 2; APF 372-3) but since only –kles is
preserved, the restoration is too uncertain (Davies points out further relevant objections to the
identification). Cf. DAA 338-40 no. 317; LGPN II, 274 (1); PAA X, 597 no. 586056 (Kroisos), vol. II,
53 no. 122480 (Alkmeonides).
1047
Cat. B 6, Akr. 124, 629: frs. of a column with a marble statue of a scribe, or tamias (cat. V 70). Cf.
DAA 10-1 no. 6; Raubitschek BSA XL (1943) 17-8; Friedländer 1948, 50-1 no. 48; Jacob-Felsch
1969, 119-20 cat. I no. 18, 35 n. 107; Brouskari 1979, 52 fig. 124 (column); APF 13-4; IG I3 618;
Kissas 2000, 194-5 no. 152. The connection between the base and statue of the scribe is not
entirely certain. Cf. LGPN, 23 (1); PAA II, 44 no. 121912; Personalia field in the Bases table.
1048
Cat. B 34, EM 6354, IG I3 841. The full inscription cannot be restored.
1049
Cat. B 178, Akr. 6971; IG I3 620. Cf. IG I3 510; APF 28, no. 282 III. He is also tentatively identified
with Andokides the vase painter, because of kerameu/j (cf. Stissi 2002, 156, 159; Keesling 2005,
399; contra Vickers 1985, 125); possible kalos inscriptions for him appears on hydria by
Timagoras and Taleides (c. 540, PAA XII, no. 127245; ABV 174.7). Davies suggests that a
discrepancy of pentakosiomedimnos and vase painter could be solved by the circumstance that
trades were practiced in this family later on, too. The family of Andokides whose brother was
Leagoras rose to great heights through the sixth and fifth centuries, fighting against Peisistratos
and producing several generals and choregoi. A potter Mnesiades of approximately the same time
is known from another hydria with Aristomenes kalos (ABV p. 314; Keesling 2005, 398).
239
Kerameis is meant.1050 In the final quarter of the sixth century, more votives of the elite
appear in the record: nine are of liturgical patrons, mostly bases for bronzes dedicated to
Athena.1051 One base was offered to the Twelve Gods:1052 its dedicant, Leagros son of
Glaukon, might be Leagros kalos, whose beauty is celebrated in dozens of late-archaic
inscriptions on pottery.1053
In the early fifth century, most of these families apparently chose for bronzes.1054
Among those who did not follow this trend is Kiron, who dedicated a marble kore in the fifth
century; the sad remnants of his wealth are the subject of a fourth-century court case.1055
After the early decades of the fifth century, elite patrons were Timotheos of Anaphlystos,
whose father Konon may have been archon in 462/1;1056 Simylos and Dorotheos of the deme
1050
Vickers 1985, 125 n. 162; Stissi 2002, 155 n. 753 discusses evidence for a demotic kerameis in
potters’ inscriptions. Wijma 2010, 198 n. 69 lists an – admittedly later – reference to this deme.
1051
For bronze statues: cat. B 90, EM 6266 (a), 6463 (b), frs. of base, by Hippos[th]enes, A[lkidam]as
L[---], Epit[eles, G]lau[k…. :] Idom[eneus]; cat. B 102, EM 6223, fr. of base, by Strombichos? son
of Strombichos; cat. B 108, AM I 1597, base, by L]eagros son of Glaukon; cat. B 111, Akr. 7898,
fr. of base for youth, by Kallias son of Hipponikos; cat. B 112, Akr. 13232, 13171, fr. of base for
Athena Promachos, by Thrasyllos and Gnathios sons of Mneson of Leukonoe; cat. B 251, EM 6344,
fr. of pillar for statuette, by Kir[on/-ias]?; cat. B 256, EM 6359, fr. of pillar, by [O]netor for himself
and his children.
1052
Cat. B 108, AM I 1597, for a bronze st.: see next note. Cf. Merritt 1936, 358 no. 2; Kissas 2000,
89 no. 10. It was found close to the altar of the Twelve Gods in the Agora.
1053
ABV 669; ARV 2 1591-4; PAA XI, 50-1 no. 602645. He was born into a high-ranking family around
525. A possible sister may have married Kritias (APF 90-1 no. 3027 (ref.) and no. 8792 VII); his
son Glaukos (II) had a daughter who perhaps married Kallias (III) of Alopeke in the late 420s (APF
91), grandson of cat. B 111 and cat. B 136 (see also below ns. 1058-1059). Cf. AM 106 (1991)
152 (the name on ostraka); LGPN, 280 (1).
1054
Choregoi were obviously part of the (economic) elite: cf. Kedeides and Kleisthenes son of
Autokrates (cat. B 105, EM 10330), as discussed above, n. 1033.
1055
The base is cat. B 14, Akr. 3763 (a-b), EM 6484 (c ), frs. of column for cat. V 188, Akr. 497. Only
her feet and a part of the plinth are preserved, and show traces of burning (DAA 21-2 no. 14;
Jacob-Felsch 1969, 126 cat. I no. 29, 37 n. 150-2; Kissas 2000, 219 no. 171). For Kiron see APF
313 no. 8442; LGPN, 261(1); PAA, 344 no. 570105. The speech, Is. 8, dates between c. 383 and
363.; the estate was by then in the hands of a grandson and had become modest. Another votive
from this period, cat. B 35, EM 6327, a pedestal for marble basin, was set up by Eune[us] and Kir[
? ]. The iota in Kir- is uncertain. If correct, more than one reconstruction of the name is still
possible. The suggestion that this is another of Kiron’s dedications is rejected (APF 313 no. 8443;
cf. DAA 408-9 no. 382; Pimpl 1997, 187 no. 93; PAA VII, 373 no. 439833). Cat. B 251, EM 6344,
fr. of pillar, by Kir[on/-ias]? may be related (DAA 289 no. 260; Kissas 2000, 154-6 no. 92). The
reconstruction is uncertain but it may be Kiron’s: APF 313 no. 8442; cf. PAA X, 343 no. 570037.
1056
Cat. B 47, EM 6375, Timoth[e]os son of Kon[on] of Anaphlysto[s], base for a bronze statue. IG I3
863 suggests it is a victor’s monument, which would fit his age (he was probably born before c.
240
Potamos, probably two brothers from a well-to-do family which produced officials and
military men throughout the fifth century BC.1057 The votive base of Kallias of Alopeke, son of
Hipponikos, dates from the third quarter of the century, its marble statue made by
Kalamis.1058 Kallias was a famous character in Athenian politics in the first half of the fifth
century: an Olympic victor, flamboyant politician and diplomat. Although an in-depth
discussion of his long career would be too much of a digression here, this marble dedication
and another one which might be his provide a glimpse of this exceptional life.1059
Evidently, the reasons for setting up votives are often success in office or military
service, or a choregic victory. However, sometimes the motivation is less clear. For example,
a bronze statue was dedicated on the Akropolis by five Athenians, but partly due to the
damaged state of the base, their reasons remain obscure.1060 Two of the dedicants can be
identified in other inscriptions from the period. Idomeneus of Kephisia was probably the
father of Philoneus of Kephisia, a treasurer to Athena between 445 and 442 BC.1061 Epiteles
might be one of the dedicators of Akr. 136, a marble statue of Athena on a column (pls. 2ab).1062 Interestingly, the bronze votive statue commissioned by these five men and the marble
Athena which Epiteles ordered were both made by Pythis. It would seem that their
cooperation worked out.
Another intriguing patron, possibly of a very wealthy and prominent Athenian family,
is Strombichos son of Strombichides: generations after his son Diotimos apparently produced
470 BC.). Cf. APF 507, no. 13700; DAA 49 no. 47; LGPN, 430 (31); PAA XVI, 363 no. 886170.
Possibly the same as the secretary to the epistatai in 443/2 (IG I2 343 line 75).
1057
Cat. B 114, EM 433, fr. of base for bronze statue, DAA 118-9 no. 114; IG I3 834. See APF 142-3
no. 3721; LGPN, 137 (99), 398 (6=1?); PAA VI, 144 no. 376980.
1058
Cat. B 136, AM I 5128, fr. of base for probably a marble statue, by [Kal]lias; DAA 152-3 no. 136;
IG I3 876. Cf. APF 258 no. 7826 V; LGPN, 245 (82); PAA X, 63-4 no. 554480. For Kalamis, p. 163.
1059
The second dedication possibly by Kallias is cat. B 111, Akr. 7898: DAA no. 111, IG I3 835, c.
500-475. It was a bronze youth on a pedestal, and possibly commemorated (according to
Raubitschek) a hat trick of Olympic racing victories in the early fifth century. If this votive is
indeed by Kallias son of Hipponikos as well, he must have offered it just before his death in 446.
His fortune seems to have been astronomical, but his notorious family lost it afterwards, for in
fourth-century liturgical records they no longer appear. Cf. e.g. Plu. Arist. 7-8.
1060
Cat. B 90, EM 6266 (a), 6463 (b), fr. of base for bronze statue, c. 500-475, by: Hippos[th]enes,
A[lkidam]as L[---], Epit[eles, G]lau[k…. :] Idom[eneus]. DAA 98-9 no. 90; Kissas 2000, 279 no.
66. The inscription is in too poor a state to establish the identities of all the patrons:
Hipposthenes, Alkidamas or Glauk-.
1061
Cat. B 90, EM 6266 (a), 6463 (b). APF 181, no. 4859. Cf. IG I3 455 line 10.
1062
Cat. B 10, Akr. 136, 4346 (a-b), 6506 (c-d); cat. V 138. See IG I3 680.
241
great politicians into the fourth century BC.1063 However, the identification of the Strombichos
who offered a bronze votive statue with the father of Diotimos is uncertain: the name occurs
more frequently in this period, also outside of the family. For example, a man by the name of
Strombichos was a secretary of the Hellenotamiai in the year 444/3.1064 An eminent patron
from the early fifth century was Onetor, who offered a bronze statue on a pillar on behalf of
himself and his children.1065 A bronze statue, dedicated by Timotheos son of Konon of
Anaphlystos deserves particular attention. He came from a powerful family, probably served
in office in the mid-fifth century, and his grandson, Timotheos II, became a famous
general.1066 The statue dedicated by two brothers, Dorotheos and Simylos, was a first fruit
offering, perhaps paid for by spolia from the Persian Wars.1067 Their family is one of the few
which can be traced well into the later fifth century. Simylos became a treasurer to Athena in
444 BC, and in the third quarter of the fifth century, a marble relief was offered by
Demokrates and Demochares, the sons of Simylos.1068 Apparently, this family continued to
prosper for some generations.
1063
Cat. B 102, EM 6223, IG I3 792: fr. of base for bronze? statue, c. 500-475. This may be APF 161
no. 4386; LGPN II, 408 (2). Cf. DAA 106-7 no. 102; PAA XV, 456 no. 842240. See next note.
1064
Strombichos I (see previous note); or Strombichos of Cholleidai, the secretary: IG I3 439 (line 734). The same office was held by the son of Gnathios, dedicant of a bronze Athena Promachos. Cf.
cat. B 112, Akr. 13232, 13171, fr. of base for bronze statue, c. 500-475, by Mneson of Leukonoe
and his sons Thrasyllos and Gnathios (DAA 116-7 no. 112; IG I3 833; APF 43-4, no. 1395; PAA IX,
353 no. 517760. The descendants inherited liturgical estates (some with difficulty: e.g. Is. 8) until
well into the fourth century.
1065
Cat. B 256, EM 6359, fr. of pillar, c. 500-475 (IG I3 706; DAA 302-3 no. 282; Kissas 2000, 134
no. 68). He may be either the father or husband of Hipylla, who dedicated a bronze mirror to
Artemis at Brauron around c. 475 (IG I3 985). The family later produced some staunch democrats
(APF 421, no. 11473 D); cf. LGPN, 354 (2). A number of kalos inscription with names from this
family (Philon, Onetorides, Onetor) occur on vases by a/o. Exekias (ABV 672, 693 foot; 671 foot,
no. 1) suggesting an aristocratic background.
1066
Cat. B 47, EM 6375, fr. of column for bronze statue: IG I3 863; DAA 49 no. 47. The patron may
have been the secretary of the epistatai in 443/2 BC (IG I3 440 line 11: but no patronymic or
demotic can be established there): see also APF 507, no. 13700; LGPN, 430 (31); PAA XVI, 363 no.
886170. Reconstruction IG: Timo/q[e]oj Ko/n[onoj a)ne/qhken(?)] / Anaflu/stio[j ---?].
1067
See also above p. 240. Cat. B 114, EM 433, base for bronze statue (DAA 118-9 no. 114). IG I3 834;
APF 142-3 no. 3721; LGPN, 137 (99), 398 (6=1?); PAA VI, 144 no. 376980. Doro/qeoj kai\ Simu/loj
a)nete/qen a)parxe/n.
1068
Cat. V 332, NMA 1460. APF 142 no. 3721; LGPN, 110 (63), 113 (39), 398 (6); PAA V, 218 no.
316785, 288 no. 322025. Demochares as treasurer: IG I3 954, 455 lines 14-5. Similos’ office was
in 445/4 or 444/3. The family did not maintain their position. After a trierarchy in the early fourth
century (APF 142-3 no. 3721; IG II2 1607: [-]rhj Pota/mioj, the only possible descendant in the
epigraphic record is a shopkeeper (the link is uncertain).
242
The evidence discussed so far in this section has confirmed that office-holders and wealthy
landowners commissioned sculpted monuments to honour their memory. But it has also
shown that not all of them chose equally lavish sculpture, and that there were patrons from
other social backgrounds as well. Both citizens and non-citizens ordered votive and
sepulchral monuments in marble and had them set up in the main sanctuaries and burial
grounds of the city. Lack of Athenian citizen status did not prevent anyone from being a
patron of sculpture. Moreover, women also appear in the record as dedicants of votive
sculpture and as patrons who commissioned grave monuments. If their position in Athens
was as poor as is often assumed, this is unexpected. In short, the patrons of Athenian
sculpture in the sixth and fifth centuries do not always confirm to the common image
referred to at the beginning of this section: that of Solon or Perikles, of male upper-class
Athenian citizens.
P ROFESSIONAL DISPLAY AND CRAFTSMEN AS PATRONS
Marble monuments in the sanctuaries and cemeteries of Athens were also set up by less
fortunate inhabitants of Athens, by those who held no public offices and were not successful
generals. Nonetheless, their income must have been enough to pay for sculpture. One group
of patrons who were not necessarily rich, but still owned enough to offer votives and in some
cases set up gravestones consisted of craftsmen (tables 9a-b, charts 9a.3-b.3).
A variety of professions can be found in inscriptions. The first example, from the
third quarter of the sixth century, is the dedication of a builder whose name is no longer
preserved. He set up an impressive monument of two pillars on a base, which carried an
architrave with a statue on top (pl. 45a).1069 Of the same period is the gravestone of Xenokles
the spearman,1070 probably an ordinary Athenian serving in the military rather than a
professional soldier. His family must have been quite well-off, in view of the monumental
kouros with which they honoured him.
1069
Cat. B 196, EM 6446: te/kton. Only part of the base now remains. The inscription (in first person)
was on the pillars’ capitals. DAA 231-2 no. 196; IG I3 606.
1070
Cat B 185, KM I 425: IG I3 1200; Jeffery 1962, 118-9 n. 3; Kissas 2000, 39-40 no. 4; Peek, Ker. III
n. 22a, pls. 7.1-2; PAA XIII, 363 no. 731885.
243
Although craftsmen constitute a relatively sizeable group of patrons, inscriptions which
specifically mention the profession of the dedicant are few, and their preservation is often
poor (tables 9a-b). The craft which seems to occur most frequently (or more precisely, least
infrequently) in the votive material of the final quarter of the sixth century are pottery or
vase- painting.1071 Among potential potters-patrons of the final quarter of the sixth century
may be Peikon (pl. 45b), Aischines, Mnesiades and possibly Andokides, whose case was
discussed above. Their names appear among the patrons on the Akropolis, and they may
have been potters.1072 Nearchos’ majestic kore still commands respect (pl. 19b-c), but the
potter by that name worked much earlier than the date of the kore. If the man in the
inscription and the potter are the same man, it must have been his son who set up the votive
on behalf of his father.1073 Of these dedicants, only one chose to offer a bronze statue.
However, the marble sculptures commissioned by the others are in most cases impressive to
say the least.
Three further professions from the late sixth century are represented by Alkibios the
kithara-player, a tanner named Smikros, and Polyxenos son of Mneson, a fuller who set up a
1071
This is not to say that the numbers of potters which Raubitschek construed as patrons of marble
votives in late-archaic Athens are considered reliable here. For a discussion of this problem of the
inscriptions: Scheibler 1979, passim; Wagner 2000; Stissi 2002, 151-60 (with extensive lit. until
2002); Keesling 2005, 415-21.
1072
For the identification of Andokides with the potter, above n. 1049. Mnesiades in Scheibler 1979,
9; Stissi 2002, 154-6; Keesling 2005, 398-9. Peikon: cat. B 44, EM 12750, fr. of column for
marble seated figure, IG I3 633. Cf. Beazley 1944, 23; DAA 46-7, no. 44; PAA XIV, 148 no.
771030; Scheibler 1979, 11-2; Kissas 2000, 234-5 no. 188; Stissi 2002, 154-5. Aischines: cat. B
48, Akr. 456 (a), Akr. 3759 (b), frs. of column for statue, kore or vessel, IG I3 631 (Stissi 2002,
153). Cf. Beazley 1944, 23 n. 1; DAA 50 no. 48; Jacob-Felsch 1969, 121-2 cat. I no. 21, 37;
Kissas 2000, 201 no. 157; Keesling 2003, 214; PAA I, 251 no. 114710. LGPN II, 15 (4, 5) separate
the Aischines in this votive inscription from the signature on ABV 351. Cat. B 150, Akr. 3767,
15595 (a-b), 3768 (c ), no. ? (d), are frs. of a base for a bronze statue dedicated by the son of a
man whose name is not preserved, also a potter. IG I3 663; also DAA 168-9 no. 150; Jacob-Felsch
1969, 42 n. 133; Kissas 2000, 271-5 no. 56, figs. 351-6. A total of five possible potters’ votives
from the Akropolis date 525-500.
1073
The Antenor kore, Akr. 681 (cat. V 11; B 197), named after its sculptor Antenor, son of Eumares,
was dedicated by a man called Nearchos (DAA 232-3 no. 197; Jacob-Felsch 1969, 118-9 cat. I
no. 16, 41, 47 n. 150-3; Kissas 2000, 116-7 no. 45; Scheibler 1979, 9-10 and 1983, 124;
Keesling 2003, 210, 214). The identification of Nearchos with the potter cannot be verified: for
the problematic dates see the Personalia field in the database, cat. B 197. The suggestion is that it
was a retirement dedication, made possible by Nearchos’ son Tleson working at the end of the
sixth century (Beazley 1944, 21; Scheibler 1983, 125-6; Stissi 2002, 153-4, 160). For the
individuals involved see LGPN, 328 (2=1?); PAA XIII, 49 no. 703100 (and possibly 703105).
244
marble basin (pl. 45c).1074 In the first quarter of the fifth century, inscriptions containing
professions continue to be used, for example, in the votive base of a kithara-player, Opsios,
or one of a fuller called Simon.1075 A kore was possibly set up by a fisherman after a great
catch (pl. 46a), although the inscription could also refer to an auspicious find from the sea by
a sailor, or even someone who simply happened to be travelling by sea.1076 A washerwoman
by the name of Smikythe is among the professionals offering dedications on the Akropolis in
this period, too, as is a messenger or keryx called Oinobios.1077
Potters seem to be dedicating less at beginning of the fifth century,1078 with the
possible exception of one highly conspicuous patron: Onesimos son of Smikythos offered at
least seven basins to Athena in the first quarter of the fifth century, either in consecutive
years, or (more likely) in one go (pls. 46c-d).1079 This lavish dedicant is identified with the
red-figure cup painter of the late sixth and early fifth centuries.1080 It is hard to imagine the
1074
Alkibios offered a bronze statue: cat. B 84, Akr. 13262. See IG I3 606; DAA 89-90 no. 84; PAA II,
40 no. 121720; Kissas 2000, 101-2 no. 25. Smikros the tanner: cat. B 51, Akr. 6972. See IG I3
646; DAA 59-60 no. 58; 501-2; PAA XV, 310 no. 825685. In IG the lettering is compared with
several other inscriptions e.g. IG I3 627-629 and 646-664 and it is suggested all were done by
the same letter-cutter. If correct, this workshop would have done the lettering for many sculptors,
including Eumares, Antenor, Euthykles, Thebades, Hermippos and Pollias. However, from such a
renowned letter-cutter it would be somewhat surprising that skylodephsos is spelled skylodesphos
here. Polyxenos knapheus: cat. V 293, EM 6535 (+6555?).
1075
Pl. 23d: cat. B 49, Akr. 150, EM 6248, fr. of capital for kore, possibly Akr. 429 (cat. V 335), by
Simon knafeu/j, the fuller. Cat. B 86, EM 6346b (a), 6357 (c), frs. of base for bronze vessel
(although dowel holes are not described anywhere), by Opsios the kytharoidos. It may have been a
prize vessel won for some musical competition, although one would expect a more elaborate
inscription in that case (IG I3 754).
1076
Cat. B 229, EM 6431, frs. of pillar for a small kore by [--]lochos the fisherman. IG I3 828: Th/nde
ko/ren a)ne/qhken a)parxe/n / [Nau/?]loxoj a)/graj : e(/n oi( pontome/d[on xr]usotri/a[i]n’ e)/poren. ‘This
figure of a kore Naulochos dedicated as a first fruit of the treasure which the ruler of the deep
with the golden trident provided.’
1077
Smikythe’s: cat. B 38, Akr. 607, fr. of pedestal for marble basin; Oinobios offered cat. B 166, EM
6358, fr. of pillar for marble stele Akr. 702 (cat. V 115).
1078
Cat. B 73, EM 6412a, fr. of base for marble seated figure or group was dedicated by Kephaleus or
Kephisieus, or by someone kerameus. Interesting is IG I3 824, DAA no. 24, offered by the potter
Euphronios (c. 475). It was excluded because it does not match the selecton criteria; but it would
add to the potters’ votives of this time.
1079
Cat. V 300, EM 6549; cat. V 301, EM 6543, 6538; cat. V 302, EM 6543a-g; cat. V 303, EM 6534;
cat. V 304, EM 6532; cat. V 308, EM 6533; and cat. V 309, EM 6539. Cf. IG I3 926-932. IG I3 933,
sometimes included in Onesimos’ dedications, is too fragmentary to ascertain the reconstruction.
1080
Cf. Beazley 1944, 23 n. 1; Scheibler 1979, 13; Robertson 1992, 117-8; Cook 1997, 165; Pimpl
1997, 182-85 nos. 65-7, 71, 75-6, 82; Stissi 2002, 153; Keesling 2005, 402-3 n. 26 (ref.).
245
officials of the sanctuaries on the Akropolis happy over such a booming collection of basins,
but a man fulfilling his religious obligation of first fruit offerings could hardly be rebuked for
his piety. Onesimos’ son Theodoros offered two bronze statuettes, perhaps of Athena
Promachos, to the goddess in the same period. These may have been a joint dedication with
his father, or additions to a votive set up by Onesimos.1081 The good fortune of the family
apparently continued in the fifth century, for Theodoros seems to be the dedicator of a votive
of around 470 BC as well.1082 From later in the fifth century, no professional names on
votives are preserved. Even if fewer private inscriptions from the later fifth century are
preserved, the decrease of patrons’ professions in post-archaic inscriptions is notable.
As was discussed in the previous section, iconography can also shed light on a
patron’s profession. A rather large relief from the first quarter of the fifth century shows a
craftsman at work, while Athena Ergane watches over him.1083 A basin on a tripod in between
them could either be for heating metal, or it could be an example of the man’s high-quality
work, perhaps a votive. Another example is a relief with a man wearing a cap next to his
horse-drawn cart, worshipping Asklepios, Hygieia and Epione.1084 The dedicant may have
made his living as a farmer or in transport; it is less likely that the cart was depicted solely for
decoration.1085 The only other occupation presented on votive reliefs from the sixth or fifth
centuries is soldiering. Many of the stelai with horses and chariots may refer to the Athenian
cavalry, or to horse-racing. There are two non-equestrian reliefs with clear military
connotations, both from the second half of the fifth century: the relief of Demokrates and
1081
Cat. B 217, Akr. 4148. Raubitschek (DAA 246-8 no. 217) suggests it may be a re-dedication of
the basins after the Persian Wars. Keesling (2005, 402) shows this is unlikely because of the find
context, which she dates before 480. Whichever the case, a separate votive was set upon the base
by the son as well; and the difference in lettering proves that father and son had their separate
votives. Keesling (ibid. 403) suggests convincingly that the dowel holes allow for a number of
striding figures, possibly four similar ones of Athena Promachos. Cf. IG I3 699; Beazley 1944, 23
n. 1; LGPN, 215 (6), 352 (2), 401 (1); PAA XIII, 138 no. 506445 (Theod.), 490-1 no. 746660
(Ones.); Kissas 2000, 123-4 no. 52. Beazley 1994, 23 n. 1; IG I-3 930; LGPN II, 352 (2), 401 (1;
DAA 387-9 no. 353; PAA XIII, 490-1 no. 746660.
1082
Cat. B 217, Akr. 4184: Beazley 1944, 23 n. 1; DAA 246-8 no. 217; Kissas 2000, 123-4 no. 52;
Keesling 2005, 401-3; LGPN II, 215 (6), 352 (2), 401 (1); PAA XIII, 138 no. 506445: IG I3 699B.
1083
Cat. V 227, Akr. 577. Cf. Perdrizet 1903, 259-63 fig. 2; Edelmann 1992, 184 A13; Himmelmann
1994, 45-6 fig. 19; Trianti 1998, 236 pl. 246; Chatzedemetriou 2005, 179, 225 pl. 59.
1084
Cat. B 233, NMA 1341, see pl. 39d: Mitropoulou 1977, 67 no. 134, fig. 194.
1085
LIMC II, s.v. Asklepios 890 no. 395 (Holtzmann); Meyer 1989, 145-6 ns. 977, 982, 159 n. 1086,
174 n. 1196, 180 n. 1240, 187 n. 1289, 220, 229 n. 1614, 237; Edelmann 1992, 192 B51;
Himmelmann 1994, 45-6; IG II2 4356; Kaltsas 2001, 140 no. 267
246
Demochares has been discussed above;1086 the other is a small relief showing Athena next to
a tropaion, perhaps about to offer a libation (pl. 47a).1087 Even these two cannot be labelled
soldiers’ dedications for certain, but a military theme is clearly present.
Gravestones, on the other hand, frequently portray soldiers.1088 Without an
inscription, these depictions are most likely to be for Athenian citizens who fell in battle. In
Athens in the later fifth century, there was certainly enough occasion for such themes. A
further difference between professions on votives or on gravestones is that the latter
continue to depict the craftsmen themselves in the fifth century. A wonderful example of this
is the relief of Euktitos the physician, commended for always having taken good care of his
patients in a rather lengthy inscription on a small relief (pl. 47b).1089
The cobbler Xanthippos is at work on his grave relief, showing his last to two girls
who are probably his daughters (pl. 47c).1090 Cobblers were depicted relatively often on
classical gravestones in Attika, perhaps because great demand for shoes had drawn many
shoemakers to the city.1091 That Xanthippos was well-off is clear from this large grave
monument, but his civic status is uncertain.1092 Whether he was the owner of a workshop or
earned enough for this gravestone by making and fixing shoes himself, remains obscure. The
1086
Above n. 1068. It shows a chlamys-clad man with a spear, who is standing in front of a hero
(Kephalos?): cat. V 332.
1087
Cat. V 174, NMA 2454.
1088
From the sixth century, six examples: cat. G 1, Perg. Mus. A5, rel. with spear bearer, 575-550;
cat. G 98, NMA 7901, rel. with spear-bearer, 550-525; cat. G 95, NMA 1772, rel. with javelin
thrower, 550-525. Of 525-500: cat. G 175, NMA 1959, Marathon runner; cat. G 83, NMA 34, rel.
with warrior; cat. G 35, NMA 4801, rel. with warrior. From 425-400, two grave reliefs with
soldiers and a lekythos: cat. G 52, NMA no. ?, fr. of rel. with man, holding spear; cat. G 66, ML ma
3063 (MNC 2193), rel. of Erasippos and Meixias in armour; cat. G 31, NMA 835, lekythos with
armed man and other figures: horseman, seated woman, young girl. These others may also have
been the beneficiaries of the monument, with or instead of the soldier.
1089
Cat. G 117, NMA 8866, IG II2 11429a; Peek 1942, 124-5 no. 264; LGPN, 176 (1); PAA, VII, 352 no.
438455. Salta 1991, 247 with n. 2597 notes that the name indicates Ionian origins; she also
argues that that physicians occur relatively frequently on gravestones because of their special
standing in society.
1090
Cat. G 55, BM 628 (1805.7-3.183). Smith 1892 III.1, 310-1 no. 628, pl. XI fig. 2; Dohrn 1957,
141-2 no. 51, pls. 23a, 27b; Stupperich 1977, 178 no. 455, 89 n. 1, 94, 95, 112 n. 3 and 5, 123;
Neumann 1979, 448 n. 43; Clairmont CAT I, 402-4 no. 1.630. Smith suggested that the cobbler’s
last is a foot model once dedicated for a cure; but this seems unlikely in a gravestone.
1091
Salta 1991, 255-6: the large number of shoemakers can among others be derived from the level
of specialisations within the craft: some seem to have made only a narrow range of shoe types.
1092
Cf. IG I3 1282bis; Salta 1991, 255 n. 2682, 256; LGPN, 344 (21); PAA XIII, 339 no. 730315. Salta
notes the absence of the patronymic, which for an adult citizen of means would be unlikely.
247
pride with which he presents his work to his children is evident and the idiosyncrasy of his
monument makes one wonder whether he ordered the relief before his death, perhaps to
make life easier for his daughters and the guardian they would get when their father died.
Music and weaving are two further crafts mentioned on gravestones from the late
fifth century.1093 A lyre player who had won a contest apparently wished to depict his finest
hour on his memorial, but how Mynno’s supposedly domestic weaving made it to her
gravestone is somewhat more dubious. It has been suggested that the great quantity of
weaving women on fourth-century gravestones suggests professional rather than domestic
activity; if this is true, Mynno could be an early exponent.1094 Professional female weavers
may have been a result of the Peloponnesian war, when people fled from rural Attika to the
city. With many men away fighting the war, women had to take on work for a living, like
weaving or washing laundry.1095 Such work out of necessity may seem incongruous with a
marble gravestone, but in the late sixth century washing had been sufficiently well-paid to
allow for offerings like marble basins.1096 For whatever reason such businesses were set up,
there is no reason why they would not have done well.
These votive inscriptions – and some depictions – which display professional pride
and the excellence of craftsmen quite often mention their foreign origins. At the end of the
fifth century a grave relief was set up for Mannes, a woodman from Orymaia in Phrygia who
lived in Athens.1097 The epigram mentions his death in battle and offers lavish praise, or to be
precise, self-praise. Although the inscription says little about his identity, this Mannes may
have been the same as a freed slave of that name who lived in the deme Acharnai, also
known as Little Phrygia.1098 In this case, a show of professional success might have been
more than piety alone: craftsmen who were able to afford grand dedications not only showed
1093
Cat. G 49, Berlin St. M. 737 (K 23), the stele of Mynno showing her with spindle, distaff and
kalathos; and cat. G 115, NMA 6197, the stele of Emporion, showing a lekythos in relief on which
the lyre-player was painted.
1094
Pomeroy 1976, 71-3; Salta 1991, 259 n. 2731.
1095
Brock 1994, 338, 344 and passim.
1096
Iphidike the washerwomen: above n. 1004. According to some statistics, 17% of metic labourers
in Athens were women (Salta 1991, 259).
1097
Cat. G 159, ML mnd 1795: IG I3 1371.
1098
Salta 1991, 215 refers to the Catalogi Paterarum. Reconstruction IG: Frugw=n o(\j a)/ristoj e)ge/nat’
e)n eu)[r]uxo/roisin ’Aqh/na[i]j, / Ma/nnhj ’Oru/maioj, o(\ mnh=ma to/d’ e)sti\ / kai\ ma\ Di/’ ou)k ei)=don /
e(mauto= a)mei/nw u(loto/mon / e)n tw=i pole/m[w]i a)pe/qanen: ‘Manes of Orymaia, best of the Phrygians,
conceived in Athens’ spacious plains, this is his beautiful monument. And by Zeus, I never saw a
better wood-cutter than myself … he died in the war.’ Cf. Applebaum 1992, 170; Miller 1997, 84.
248
their wealth and fulfilled a religious custom, they also put their skill on display. The subtext
for visitors of sanctuaries was to employ these men or women, whose high-quality services
had enabled them to dedicate. The fact that most professions occur on votives rather than
gravestones supports this: there was little point in advertising for a deceased craftsman.
N ON - ATHENIANS AND CITIZENS
It may be understandable why foreign craftsmen used ethnics in the inscriptions on their
monuments, but as we have seen, most ethnica in grave inscriptions cannot be connected to
any craft. The late-archaic gravestone of Anaxagora of Syracuse, for example, shows no sign
of her having been a tradeswoman.1099 This raises the question what the motive for including
the ethnic might have been. It is hard to see why ethnica appear on votives or gravestones at
all, except on monuments for proxenoi and other official foreign relations.1100
In theory, before Perikles’ citizenship law the use of an ethnic is not so surprising, if
a patron had married into an Athenian family. Children of a foreign mother and an Athenian
father could become citizens by enrolling them in their father’s phratry.1101 Even if the
Athenian parent was the mother rather than the father, there was a possibility to give the
children citizen status, although no examples of this practice survive.1102 An enrolment in the
phratry may be what is depicted in the relief with a pig sacrifice mentioned above.1103
However, after Perikles’ citizenship law was passed, ‘display’, if it can be called that, of
1099
Cat. G 150, EM 9187, a small stele. IG I3 1361; Jeffery LSAG, 275 no. 10.
1100
Funke 2006, 3-4 points out that in Athens, an effort was made to include non-citizen residents,
even slaves, in state cults and festivals, to strengthen their ties to Athens and promote the bonds
of the members of the Delian League. In light of this is it odd that ethnica occur on gravestones
far more often than on votives, especially in the fifth century: apparently dedication was not part
of the Athenians’ attempts at ritual unity. See also Mora 2006, passim for strangers at PanHellenic sanctuaries, in oracles and in mystery cults.
1101
See Blok 2009, 158; cf. Blok 20091, 132-3 and 2010, passim. This applies to female children as
well, since they probably could be enrolled in the same manner. Cf. also Palagia 1995, 497; and
Blok 2007, 326.
1102
Namely through adoption of the child by the mother’s father (Blok 2009, 158). She notes that
there are no surviving examples of this possibility, and that it is furthermore unlikely to have been
common. Most participants in the polis would have refrained from such marriages since they were
considered to undermine the cohesion of society.
1103
Palagia 1995. See above p. 215.
249
foreign origins of patrons seems less understandable. Why is it in the second half of the fifth
century that most ethnica appear, especially on gravestones?
Along with the quantity of monuments in general, numbers of all name types on
votives (single names, patronymics, demotics and ethnica) fall steeply in the second quarter
of the fifth century (table 9a).1104 In contrast, all name types on gravestones increase in
numbers, especially in the final quarter of the fifth century (table 9b).1105 Part of the upward
trend in ethnica is undoubtedly the result of this general development in sculpture,
particularly the grave reliefs of this period. Along with their quantities, those of the
inscriptions rise. Other name types on gravestones, notably single names and patronymics,
confirm this relation with the total numbers, for they follow a similar pattern (chart 9b.1).
While much of the development in name types therefore seems to rely on the overall
numbers of preserved sculpture, some aspects remain unexplained by this. First, on votives,
most name types peak at the time of the greatest proliferation of material, around the turn of
the sixth to the fifth century. The exception to this are ethnica, which hardly feature on
votives at all (table 9a): the pillar of Kriton the Skythian (pl. 41c) may be a case.1106 The votive
of Charikleia and Aristomache, daughters of Glaukinos of Argos is a certain example of an
ethnic, dating to the second quarter of the fifth century.1107 Yet whether this indicates the
girls’ lack of citizenship is not even sure. They are the children of a resident alien; but if their
mother was an Athenian, they could have been considered citizens. Thus, even for this votive
the status of its patrons is not straightforward.
A second point is the disappearance of women’s names on votives in the fifth
century. Where on gravestones, these become markedly more numerous in the second half of
1104
The only ethnic on a votive after the archaic period is (the not entirely certain) case of Glaukinos
of Argos, Aristomache and Charikleia (cat. B 255, EM 8169). Cf. above n. 1005. Demotics in 425400: cat. B 143, EM 6296, frs. of base for bronze statue, by a man from Alopeke; cat. B 176, Akr.
13264, fr. of base for bronze (Trojan?) horse, by Chairedemos son of Euangelos of Koile; cat. B
177, Akr. no. ?, fr. of base for bronze group (chariot?), by the son of Chaires of Cholarges. The
latter two also have patronymics; cat. V 325, NMA 1389, a relief dedicated by the son of Bakchios
is the third patronymic from this period.
1105
From the final quarter of the fifth century, 11 patronymics survive, 10 ethnica and 7 demotics: all
are from gravestones, not bases.
1106
Cat. B 220, EM 6264, IG I3 658. The ethnic could also be a patronymic, ‘son of Skythes’. Cf. DAA,
250-1 no. 220; Kissas 2000, 118-9 no. 47; LGPN II, 274 (41); PAA X, 593 no. 585765; PA 8820.
1107
Cat. B 255, EM 8169, IG I3 858; cf. DAA 320-1 no. 297; PAA III, 171 no. 172445 (A.), vol. IV, 267
no. 275730 (G.). For other, similar cases which fall outside the selection criteria of this study, see
most recently Wijma 2010.
250
the fifth century, on votives they practically disappear from the record. In short, women’s
names could be said to move from votives to gravestones, whereas ethnica seem to be more
of a sepulchral than a votive phenomenon in both centuries. The great increase in
gravestones from the second half of the fifth century comes with larger quantities of most
name types, but more conspicuously so for women and for non-Athenians.
Thus, women and foreigners stand out in the funerary inscriptions of the later fifth
century.1108 For the former, this is also traceable in the iconography of the grave reliefs (table
7c). As has been discussed in the previous section, numbers of male figures on gravestones
increase as well, producing similar numbers of male and female mortals on the memorials
from this period. It goes too far to try and quantify how many of the male figures on these
grave reliefs might be non-Athenians. Only the presence of an inscription can identify a
person as an Athenian citizen or not. But the lack of civic distinction in the iconography of
gravestones is in itself interesting, for it offers a glimpse of the self-image of the deceased
and their families.
In the late fifth century, non-Athenians who commissioned gravestones did not have
themselves or their deceased friends or kin represented any different from citizens, with the
exception of adding an ethnic to the inscription instead of a demotic. Neither can Athenian
women be distinguished from foreign ones in the iconography of gravestones;1109 and in
their case, even inscriptions are not always explicit. How should the iconographic uniformity
of these reliefs be interpreted? Does it reflect an attempt to be unobtrusive, to keep a low
profile as a foreigner in the polis? If this were the case, the presence of ethnica in inscriptions
is inexplicable. In the grave inscriptions of the later fifth century, it appears fairly
unproblematic to present one’s non-Athenian roots. This presents of a paradox with the
exclusion of non-Athenians from citizenship in the Periklean law of 451/0.1110
In a recent study on Athenian citizenship and the status of metics, J. Blok has argued
that it is unlikely that the Athenians were oblivious to the dangers of excluding resident
foreigners from the community altogether.1111 To view the citizenship law as an enforcement
of such exclusivity seems at odds with the practical circumstances in Athens in the decades
1108
Salta 1991, 169-97, and passim discusses foreigners on gravestones from all of Attika.
1109
The implications of the citizenship law for women and the iconographic and epigraphic evidence
will be discussed in section 5 of this chapter.
1110
For a discussion of previous scholarship on this see Blok 2009, 141-58.
1111
Blok 2007, 311.
251
leading up to 451/0, with numerous casualties of war among male citizens and a
considerable part of the workforce consisting of metics.1112 Probably from 470 BC onwards,
metics took part in the Panathenaia, for example by walking in the procession.1113 It has
recently been suggested that the formal setting of the Panathenaic festival was in fact one of
the first where metics were recognised as a separate group, and one which was entitled to
some participation in the city’s hiera, its rituals and sacrifices.1114 This privilege, if it can be
regarded so, was of course not equal to the roles of those who were of ‘better’ ancestry, but
it shows that metics were an acknowledged group of residents who were awarded some share
of public, in this case religious, life in Athens in the fifth century.
Another sphere where metics seem to have been included in the polis to a certain
degree is that of the burial rites of the war dead. Athenian citizens and non-citizens were
mentioned in the Athenian casualty lists and were buried together. Here too, metics can be
viewed as members – albeit of low rank – of the polis community, at least from the second
quarter of the fifth century on.1115 If this is accepted, the appearance of ethnica on grave
reliefs whose iconography looks exactly like depictions on those of Athenian citizens
becomes more understandable. The sculpture was Athenian (although as was shown earlier,
the stone and the sculptor were not always so) and the ethnic indicated membership of one
of the social groups which Athenian society acknowledged as part of its community. Since
this group was not considered a threat and its contribution was recognised by the Athenians,
there is very little reason why patrons of votives or gravestones would avoid mentioning their
non-Athenian descent.
Women are the other group with which Perikles’ citizenship law is explicitly
concerned. In order to put sculpture into the context of this aspect of Athenian law, it is
necessary to take earlier evidence into account. Recent studies have shown that in latearchaic vase paintings which depict various aspects of cult, such as libations or sacrifices, the
ratio of men and women as worshippers is much more even than the epigraphical evidence
1112
Blok 2007, 323.
1113
Ibid. 316. Cf. also Simon 1983, 28-9, 93; Kron 1992, 164; Wijma 2010, 29. However, metic
participation in some cults cannot be taken for granted: Parker 1996, 161; for a detailed survey
see Wijma 2010.
1114
Wijma 2010, 27-8; cf. also Parker 2005, 258-61; Funke 2006, 3; Blok 2009, 161. For an in-depth
discussion of the evidence for metic participation in the Panathenaic festivals, see Wijma 2010,
29-61, and especially 54-61. Parker 1996, 266, argues that cooperation of citizens and metics in
cult was rare (using an example from the fourth century).
1115
Blok 2007, 323. Cf. also Salta 1991, 255; Blok 2005, 18-9.
252
would suggest.1116 Similarly to these vase-paintings, the iconography of votive reliefs of the
final quarter of the sixth century and the first quarter of the fifth century presents relatively
even number of male and female figures (excluding deities: table 7c), even if overall numbers
are admittedly low. Blok has interpreted the relatively even balance of men and women
offering sacrifice on vases as an acknowledgement of the roles of both men and women in
the civic organisation instituted by Kleisthenes.1117 As was the case for Athenian residents of
foreign descent, these roles of citizens of both sexes were expressed through participation in
the city’s hiera and hosia. This is what is reflected in the vase-paintings as well as on the few
late-archaic votive reliefs, such as the relief with the pig sacrifice or one with the Graces.1118
This interpretation of the material leads to the notion that although the role of
women is not explicitly reflected in state functions or documents, it should by no means be
underestimated. In Blok’s view, the 451/0 citizenship law aimed to promote descent as a
criterion of citizenship by Solonic property classes, which divided the Athenian citizenry.1119
The requirement of citizen status of women to produce Athenian citizens elevated their value
in the system of polis participation.1120 This may explain the relatively frequent appearance of
women on grave reliefs of the second half of the fifth century.1121 In favour of this possibility
is the fact that numbers of male figures also increase on grave reliefs from the final quarter
of the fifth century (table 7c). This balance coincides with the qualification of Athenian
women as providing half of the descent which was necessary to qualify for full citizenship.1122
The patterns of names in the fifth century suggest that democratic legislation such as
Perikles’ citizenship law had little effect on the choice of an inscription. Mannes the
woodman, for one, seems quite oblivious to the issue: his self-esteem is clearly unimpaired.
If he was a freed slave, he had left behind any insecurity about his former status; and if he
had always been free, his lack of citizenship does not seem to bother him. His professional
skill was a great deal more important. Some monuments, like this one, show pride of the
1116
Borgers 2008, passim; cf. Blok forthcoming.
1117
Blok 20091, 134; id. 2010.
1118
Akr. 581, above n. 922; and Akr. 702, above n. 921.
1119
Blok 2009, 159; cf. also Blok, forthcoming.
1120
Blok 2005, 20 and Blok 2009, passim.
1121
As, for example, suggested by Leader 1997 (with modifications: see next section); Shapiro 1991;
Stewart 1997, especially 118-28; Osborne 2004.
1122
The fact that women remain underrepresented in votive reliefs of the late fifth century is
somewhat of a problem in this view, but this is addressed in the next section of this chapter.
253
patron’s life or work, be it that that person had won an Olympic event, a dramatic
competition, because they were excellent carpenters, washerwomen, or a kind physician.
Other inscriptions veer towards advertisement. But apart from the appearance of demotics in
the early fifth century, there are few trends which can be regarded as reflections of group
identity. Ethnica may be an exception to this. Yet even there, metics could opt to leave their
origins obscure. In present-day scholarship this would put them in the anonymous category
of single-name inscriptions, thus making their foreign identity practically untraceable.
5
R EPRESENTING
THE LIVING AND THE D EAD
Votive and sepulchral sculpture in the sixth and fifth centuries was evidently not only
characterised by a wide range of genres; the social background of its patrons also varied a
great deal. That being said, ‘epigraphic group behaviour’ could not be established in the
material of this study. The question is whether the iconography shows more consistent
connections between the social backgrounds and the sculptural choices of patrons. Do the
genres and iconography of votive and grave monuments represent specific groups in
Athenian society? In other words, is the patron’s identity (or that of the deceased) directly
reflected in the sculpture? Or does, on the other hand, the occasion dictate the appearance of
the statue or the stele, for example, the deity to which it was donated or the cause of death
of the commemorated person?
Relations between the patron of a grave monument and the deceased for whom it
was set up must often have been close. Many of these monuments would have been ordered
by the family rather than by the person whom they lost. This divergence between the patron
and the beneficiary of the gravestone adds a complication to the process of setting up
monuments. Is, for example, one of the figures in a grave relief to be seen as a portrait of the
deceased? If so, are kouroi on archaic graves also portraits? Votive sculpture is in this respect
slightly more direct: they are certainly not portraits of their donors, for many inscriptions
which indicate male dedicants belong to pedestals which carried korai or goddesses. This
phenomenon is called disjunctive representation, where the patron’s identity is not reflected
in the gift directly but only indirectly, through symbolism.1123 The question is whether korai
1123
Keesling 2003, 16-21, 97. Also Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, 29-32.
254
were seen as more appropriate than images of the worshippers who set up the offerings? A
first step towards answering these questions is to establish the relation between the
recipients of sculpture, its patrons and its types and iconography.
In the city of Athena, most votives were dedicated to her: 84 inscriptions on votive
bases of many different kinds address the goddess directly and an additional 23 on basins
(table 10a).1124 Another 26 votive sculptures depict her, and so it can be assumed that they
were hers.1125 That being said, the many statues of Nike may have been dedicated to Nike
herself, but also to Athena:1126 she could be regaled with a statue of another goddess.1127
Thus, a depiction of one god or goddess does not always justify the conclusion that the
recipient deity was the same. In the Athenian material, however, inscriptions show the
predominance of votives offered to the goddess, and the common relation between statues of
her, with inscriptions which prove her to be the recipient.
Athena features on monuments or is mentioned in inscriptions in 151 examples in
the record of this study (table 10a).1128 It is likely that many votives whose recipient deity can
no longer be determined were hers as well, and no other deity comes close in the city.1129
1124
Two bases carried bronze Athenas, judging by the dowel holes (cat. B 270, Akr. Mag. 3827, pillar
base, 525-500; cat. B 172, Akr. no. ?, fr. of base (475-450). They are not included in the
inscriptions here. Cat. B 176, Akr. 13264 (IG I3 895) carried a horse: if it is the Trojan horse
described by Pausanias, it was from the precinct of Artemis, and is therefore most likely to have
been offered to her (Paus. I.23.8).
1125
Of these, 16 reliefs and seven statues. The latter are: cat. V 37, Akr. 661, Athena; cat. V 90, Akr.
625, Endoios Athena; and cat. V 137, Akr. 305, fr. of head, all 525-500. Of 500-475: cat. V 40,
Akr. 634, head. Of 450-425: cat. V 5, AM S 1232, torso of Athena; cat. V 155, Akr. 635, head. Of
425-400: cat. V 220, AM S 654, Athena; cat. V 327, Akr. 3027, both Athena statuettes. Two
marble owls, not included here, must have been for herm, too (cat. V 106, Akr. 1347; cat. V 201;
Akr. 1355, 245, both 525-500). For Athena on reliefs see above p. 216.
1126
Athena Nike from 525-500: on a relief, (cat. V 125, Akr. 121) and 13 partially or almost
completely preserved statues. From 500-475, three Nikai: cat. V 100, Akr. 4328; cat. V 101, Akr.
3512; cat. V 109, Akr. 3731). For the relation of Athena Nike and Nike herself, Parker 1996, 90.
1127
For the phenomenon of ‘visiting gods’ in Greek sanctuaries, see Alroth 1987.
1128
Inscriptions with Athena on bases with a preserved sculpture have been counted as one instance.
Excluding bases with a preserved statue, the monuments of this research come to a total of 778.
1129
E.g. horsemen could be particularly suitable gifts for Athena, whose mythology includes the
invention of the bridle (Athena Chalinitis, ‘bridling’: Paus. 2.4.1; P. Ol. 13.65; cf. Yalouris 1950,
passim; Burkert 1985, 141. The iconography of deities on reliefs has been discussed above, p.
216-17. A seated figure, possibly Dionysos, (cat. V 175, NMA 3711), found near the Erian gate
has therefore been interpreted as a gravestone and a votive. He is listed here as Dionysos; the
identification is not quite certain since the head is missing. It would be the only sixth-century
seated Dionysos known from the city of Athens (parallels from Attika exist).
255
Two votives to Poseidon are therefore exceptional, though they fit the occasions: one is a
joint dedication from the second quarter of the fifth century, which addresses the god with
his typically Athenian epithet Erechtheus.1130 The most wonderful example of an
unanticipated windfall resulting in an offering to Poseidon is a small kore on a pillar,
dedicated by Naulochos the fisherman (pl. 46a).1131 Hermes features in three dedicatory
inscriptions (pls. 47d-e).1132 Aphrodite is addressed in one inscription, which includes a
curiously vehement curse directed at those tarnishing the patron’s good name (pl. 7a).1133
Votives of first fruits and tithes, aparchai and dekatai, seem to have been typical gifts to a
city’s main deity, since they were linked to sedentary activities, notably agriculture.1134 Of the
41 tithes in this study, 22 are dedicated to Athena. Only one can certainly be attributed to
another god, Apollo.1135 Aparche offerings are also mostly for Athena.1136 However, first fruit
1130
Naulochos, cat. B 229, EM 6431 (a-f), see above n. 1076; cat. B 33, EM 6319, a marble basin? by
Epiteles, Oinochares, sons of Soinautes of Pergase. For Erechtheus, see Blok 2009, 150-4; also
Shapiro 1998.
1131
Pl. 46a: cat. B 229, EM 6431, IG I3 828). Cf. Friedländer 1948, 42; see Keesling 2003, 110-4 for an
extensive analysis of this piece. The third type, honorary statues for victories of various kinds,
have been discussed in the previous section (p. 235 ff.).
1132
Cat. B 166, EM 6358 (pl. 45d): fr. of pillar for st. Akr. 702 by Oinobios keryx; cat. B 247, EM 6409,
pl. 47d: fr. of b. for herm by Philon, both 500-475; and cat. B 163, EM 6516 (pl. 47e), fr. of base
for marble statue (Hermes?), 475-450. The latter is to Hermes Enagogios, of the games, an
epithet which is more common later. The patron may have been an athlete or gymnasiarch (IG I3
840; DAA 180-1 no. 163).
1133
Cat. B 98, EM 6425, fr. of pillar with capital for stele, set up by [....]odoros, possibly Pythodoros.
IG I3 832 reconstructs the epigram: [․․․]o/doro/j m` a)ne/qek` A)frodi/tei do=ron a)parxe/n⋮⋮/ po/tnia to=n
a)gaqo=n to=i su\ do\j a)fqoni/an⋮⋮/ ℎoi/ te le/gosi lo/goj a)di/k[o]j fseuda=j ka[t]` e)k[e/no⋮⋮] /
tou/[to]. ‘[Pyth]odoros dedicated me, an aparche to Aphrodite; mistress, give to him an abundance
of good things. But for those who injust words about him, this…’ For a votive which was set up in
such a public place as the Akropolis, combining a first fruit offering with a curse seems odd. After
all, the patron disclosed his problems to all the sanctuary’s visitors.
1134
Parker 2005, 444.
1135
Cat. B 124, AM I 5517, IG I3 950. Four of the total tithes are basins: cat. B 284, EM 6552; cat. B
297, EM 6558; cat. B 311, EM 6531; cat. B 316, EM 6553. One is a kore with her base (Akr. 681,
cat. V 11; cat. B 197)
1136
There are nine aparche inscriptions on bases of which the deity is uncertain; 16 are for Athena
(numbers differ from Keesling’s (2003, 6) as a result of a difference in selection criteria). E.g. of
525-500: cat. B 253, EM 6275, 6429, frs. of pillar for bronze statue to 'kore paidon' of the great
Zeus; cat. B 248, Akr. 9986, 6503, frs. of pillar for Akr. 464, cat. V 80, to Pallas Athena, by Lyson;
cat. B 242, EM 6457, fr. of pillar for bronze statuette. Of 500-475: cat. B 284, EM 6314, column
b. for bronze statue, by Athenodoros and Dionysios son(s) of Eurykleides; cat. B 160, Akr. 13270,
fr. of b. for bronze statue by Aristeas and Opsios of Oa. Of 475-450: cat. B 123, EM 6259 (a),
6292 (b), 6443 (c), frs. of b. for bronze statue by Aristokles of Aigilia.
256
offerings to Aphrodite and Poseidon1137 show that other deities – in this case worshipped in
the same sacred precinct as Athena – could also receive votives of this kind. The word
aparche was commonly used for the deity’s share of the tribute which the members of the
Delian League paid, and dekatai were mostly spoils of war.1138 However, neither meaning is
used exclusively for these cases. The value of a dekate is a tenth of the gain that gave rise to
the dedication, but the proportional value of aparchai can vary and reasons for donating one
include harvest, success in trade or inheritance.1139
Dedications could be presented to the gods as the result of vows, of unexpected
windfalls (especially financial ones) or in praise of a deity for granting a victory.1140 An
example of fulfilment of a vow is the column set up by the tamias Alkimachos son of
Chairion (pls. 44d-e).1141 It carried the statue of a scribe which may well refer directly to
Alkimachos’ office. The votive column offered to Athena by Telesinos of Kettos is more
personal, as was discussed at the beginning of this study.1142 A similar request was made by
Menandros, son of Demetrios, who had promised Athena a gift if his wealth was preserved.
The goddess must have done so, for the bronze statue was set up.1143
Aparchai and dekatai cannot always be clearly separated. Both terms appear in
inscriptions on a variety of votive monuments: from Smikythe the washerwoman’s marble
basin, to a kore by Lysias and Euarchis, or a bronze statue of Hierokleides, the son of
Glaukias (pl. 48d).1144 In eight of the tithes and in 11 of the aparchai, dedicants seem to be
1137
Aparchai for Aphrodite and Poseidon see above ns. 1130 and 1133.
1138
Burkert 1985, 69; id.1987, 46; Parker 1996, 143; Keesling 2001, 7.
1139
Crops: perhaps cat. B 191, EM 6385 (IG I3 800), although usually xorio/w is interpreted as ‘owning
land in’ (DAA 225-6 no. 191; LGPN II, 447 (2), 469 (17); Kissas 2000, 133 no. 65). Trade: cat. B
229, EM 6431 (a-f), IG I3 828, for a catch of fish (or some other catch from the sea), cf. above n.
1076; or cat. B 44, EM 12750, IG I3 633, for Peikon the potter (pl. 46a). Inheritance: Hdt. 1.92.1-4,
Kroisos at Delphi. Cf. Keesling 2001, 7.
1140
In some cases these types mix, e.g. in the spoils of a battle or if athletes had beforehand vowed a
dedication if they won. Cf. Burkert 1987, 68-9.
1141
Cat. B 6, Akr. 124, IG I3 618.
1142
Cat. B 40, Akr. 6505, IG I3 728. Athena is addressed with the vocative Pharthene (Parthene) as it is
usually interpreted: DAA 43 no. 40; Brouskari 1979, 48 (suggests the statues was a kore and is
the one addressed in the inscription); Kissas 2000, 232-3 no. 186.
1143
Cat. B 218, EM 6353, IG I3 872.
1144
For this blurred boundary between the two, Keesling 2001, 6. Examples: cat. B 38, Akr. 607
(Smikythe); cat. B 233, EM 6335 (pl. 48e), Hierokleides, possibly a citizen: Kissas 2000, 148 -49
no. 84; LGPN II, 232, 93; DAA 268-70 no. 233; PAA IX, 404 no. 531880). Cat. B 133, Akr. 6978,
450-425 (Pyres). All date 500-475.
257
citizens, or daughters or wives of citizens.1145 Furthermore, eight aparchai are joint offerings
(pl. 48e),1146 by family members, associates, or by people whose relation is unclear (table
9a).1147 Neither of the types of votives shows a preference for certain materials or genres. In
short, any inhabitant of Athens might choose to donate a tithe or first-fruit, and was free to
give it whatever form he or she liked; the only other conclusions which the material permits
are that most patrons who could afford sculpture, whether male or female, preferred Athena.
Among the occasions which were suitable for the dedication of sculpture, there are
few likely candidates. As was mentioned earlier, the relief on the Akropolis which shows a
family about to sacrifice a pig to Athena, may be a rendering of the Apatouria festival.1148 A
part of this festival which has been established with certainty was the enrolment of boys, and
perhaps also girls, in the phratry of their father.1149 Olga Palagia has connected the relief to
the Apatouria because of the presence of children and because the victim is a sow.1150
Regardless of whether the interpretation of the scene is justified, it is not self-evident that
this votive was dedicated during the festival which it depicted. Unlike other types of sacrifice,
1145
Cat. B 95, EM 12946 (a), 6455 (b), frs. of base, 525-500, ? of Aphidna. Of 500-475: cat. B 184,
EM 6345, fr. of pillar, Archeneides of Kollyte; cat. B 191, EM 6385, fr. of pillar, Phileia daughter of
Chairedemos of Athmonon?; cat. B 233, EM 6335, fr. of pillar, see previous note. Of 475-450: cat.
B 119, Akr. no. ?, fr. of base, Bi]on of An[aph]l[ystos]; cat. B 123, EM 6259 (a), 6292 (b), 6443 (c),
frs. of base, Aristo]kle[s of] Aig[ili]a; cat. B 140, Akr. 13250, fr. of base, ? of Lamptrai; cat. B 203,
EM 6253, fr. of pillar, [M]ikythe and her children.
1146
Keesling 2001, 7 (she counts nine examples). Of 525-500: cat. B 41, EM 6318 (pl. 48f), fr. of
column, IG I3 740: Heortios and Opsiades. Of 500-475: cat. B 94, EM 6299 (a-c), 6247 (d), frs. of
base, by Aristion and Pasias of Lamptrai; cat. B 160, Akr. 13270, fr. of base, by [Arist]eas and
[O]phsio[s] of Oa; cat. B 210, EM 6320B, 6392, 6501 (c), 6376 (d), frs. of pillar, by [---]chares of
Cholargos and Tychandros; cat. B 217, Akr. 4184, frs. of pillar, Theo[do]ros son of [On]esimos
and Onesimos son of Smikythos; cat. B 284, EM 6314, column base, by [Di]on[ysi]os,
[A]thenodor[o]s son(s) of [Eury]kleides. Of 475-450: cat. B 114, EM 433, fr. of base, Dorotheos
and Simylos; cat. B 117, EM 6273, fr. of base, by ? and Theodotos.
1147
Families, e.g. of 475-450: cat. B 121, Akr. 13206, fr. of base, Ekphantos and his son Hegelochos;
cat. B 33, EM 6319, fr. of pedestal, Epiteles and Oinochares sons of Soinautes? of Pergase.
Probably official: cat. B 68, EM 6227 (a), 6231 (b) (6220 (c-d), frs. of base, at least 6 persons of
various demes: Acharnai, Kephale, Amphitrope, Anaphlystos, Phrearroi, Aigilia, 525-500. Of 500475: cat. B 194, EM 6276, 6320, 6320a, frs. of capital, Epichares, Opholonides, Charinos,
Charisios and [--]kles; and cat. B 90, EM 6266 (a), 6463 (b), frs. of base, Hippos[th]enes,
A[lkidam]as L[---], Epit[eles, G]lau[k…. :] Idom[eneus].
1148
Palagia 1995. Cf. above p. 220 and Van Straten 1987, 77; 289.
1149
An extensive overview of the festival’s characteristics in Parker 2005, 458-61.
1150
Palagia 1995, 495-7 argues that this is a suitable gift for Athena in various roles, including that
of Athena Phratria. Cf. Parker 2005, 458-61.
258
marble sculptures were not prescribed as offerings on specific occasions, contrary to gifts
such as, for example, clothes which women in some places offered to Artemis after
childbirth.1151 Sculpture does not appear in sacrificial calendars or other descriptions of rites.
It is possible, though not at all certain, that festivals were moments par excellence to set up
sculpted votives.1152 However, a connection between any specific festival (or any specific
deity, for that matter) and dedications of sculpture cannot be established.1153
An issue briefly touched upon above is the relation between patrons and the most
popular archaic votives: korai, and to a lesser extent, kouroi and horsemen.1154 These genres
in all likelihood represent mortals, and perhaps because of this they are often considered
expressions of the aristocratic ideals of their dedicants, whose continuous competition for
status is generally accepted.1155 As a form of conspicuous consumption, these votives are
emphatically public, even though the display was to benefit private individuals.1156 However,
inscriptions show that not all patrons of sculpted monuments in Athens belonged to the
landowning elite, so the meaning of these statue types cannot be defined in terms of
aristocratic competition alone. A builder who set up an equestrian statue on the Akropolis in
1151
Guettel Cole 2004, 212.
1152
As proposed by Sinn (1996) in respect to ordering sculpture; Van Straten (pers. comm.) has
informed me there seem to be no official moments for dedicating sculpture according to the
literary or epigaphic testimonia.
1153
A possible exception to this might be the dedication of prizes won for various kinds of contests.
But even here, the exact time of dedication (during the same festival, or at some later time?)
cannot be ascertained. Cf. also Kyle 1996; and more specifically De Polignac 2005, 20-1 (seventh
and sixth centuries BC).
1154
Above, section IV.2, p. 207-210, 223.
1155
For equestrian statues, this notion in: Floren 1986, 277-8; Stewart 1991, 131-2; Eaverly 1995;
Stears 2000, 29; Keesling 2003, 89-91, who stresses the need to complement an analysis of
equestrian votives from the Akropolis with bases for bronze statues. For kouroi: Renfrew 1986,
11-2; Ridgway ASGS, 66-9; Boardman GSAP, 22; Pedley 2005, 107-10; Meyer and Brüggemann
2007, 93-132, 121-30 with extensive bibl. Korai: Richter 1968, 3-4; Floren 1986, 262; Ridgway
1982, 123-7; ASGS1 86-7; Himmelmann 1998, 49; Karakasi 2001, 11, 147 and passim; Steiner
2001, 106-3, 234-8; Boardman GSAP, 24-5; Keesling 2003, 97-121; Stieber 2004, 10-2 and
passim; see ibid. 13-41 for an overview of research. General: D’Onofrio 1982,1995; Hurwit 1985,
197-8; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 231-54 (grave monuments); Fehr 1996; Shapiro 2001, 4-5.
1156
Most discussions in the previous note imply this argument or accept it outright. Exceptions a/o.:
Sourvinou-Inwood 1998, 289-92; Keesling 2003, 90; Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, 31. For a
succinct discussion of the publicness of such display, see De Polignac 2005 (for slightly earlier
votives); Blok 2005, 20 (for gravestones); ead. 20091, 132-3; ead. 2010.
259
the third quarter of the sixth century (pl. 45a),1157 may have emulated the aristocracy.
Alternatively, his wealth may have allowed him to rear horses, participate in games and to set
up a statue to commemorate a victory.1158 Then again, he may simply have liked statues of
horses, regardless of their aristocratic connotations. Whichever the case, in many respects he
did not belong to the Athenian elite.1159
For korai, the question why so many Athenian patrons chose them as votives has
everything to do with whom they represent.1160 Should they be interpreted as goddesses, as
real priestesses or as girls who once walked the streets of Athens, as portraits of some kind,
or as symbols of sexual or political power? It is possible that some korai are goddesses: for
example, the Peplos Kore may represent Artemis (pl. 49a).1161 However, it is unlikely that all
are divine: neither the details of their dresses nor their gestures belong exclusively to
deities.1162 Alternatively, the Athenian korai could represent daughters of marriageable age
from the upper echelons of the Athenian citizenry.1163 Their value would then lie in their
capacity to marry and form strategic alliances among well-born families. This capital is
transferred symbolically onto the korai, who are then offered to Athena.1164
1157
Cat. B 196, EM 6466, IG I3 606; DAA 231-2 no. 196. If tekton should be interpreted as architect,
this could (but does not have to) alter the patron’s perceived status somewhat. For example,
Coulton 1977, 15-30.
1158
Participation of the middle or lower classes in games is highly contested. Cf. Kyle 1996, 116;
Smith 2007, 95 n. 37. Cf. Parker 1996, 141, describing horses in ancient Athens as ‘luxury on
four legs’.
1159
Cf. Keesling 2003, 89-90.
1160
E.g. Pedley 2005, 107; Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, 25-7. The suggestion that korai are girls
who performed rituals on the Akropolis is rejected by the latter, because no extant korai hold cult
paraphernalia. Only the arrephoroi would qualify, but they were younger than the korai. Keesling
2003, 99-101; 107-10, keeps open the possibility that some korai portray real women.
1161
Robertson 1985, 168; Brinkmann and Brijder, 47-55; Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, 19-25 (korai
as Athenas); 22 (Artemis). Since the identification is not certain (the drill holes for golden rays
could be for a meniskos or other head gear, and the hole for an arrow in her hand could also have
been for a metal wreath, or even a flower), she is listed as a kore. The painted embroideries on
the dress are interesting: an investigation of colour on more korai may offer evidence on dresses
and divinity. Ridgway 1982, 123-7 argues that korai are nymphs. For a concise overview of
common iconography of korai and goddesses, see Keesling 2003, 122-61.
1162
The discussion, with the most important recent exponents Ridgway 1993, Keesling 2003 and
Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, is summarised in detail in the latter, 22-3.
1163
Schneider 1975, passim; Sourvinou-Inwood 1998, 245; Shapiro 2001, 4-5; Meyer and
Brüggemann 2007, 29-30. Cf. also Aleshire 1992, 92 who links korai to the public careers of
male Athenians.
1164
Notably Schneider 1975, passim; Sourvinou-Inwood 1998, 241-6; Shapiro 2001, 4-5.
260
Even if the korai should be interpreted in terms of such marriage exchange among the landed
elite, it is problematic because korai were also offered by craftsmen.1165 The symbolic,
political capital of the daughters of Athens’ nobility, through which bonds between powerful
families could be forged, would hardly apply to the children of craftsmen, however wealthy
they may have been. To assume that the daughter of a craftsman could have married into the
aristocracy with the purpose of liaising between the two families of such diverse social status
does not fit the idea of upper-class attitudes which is a prerequisite for the same theory.1166
In a more general version of the symbolic interpretation of the korai, they represent
the general prosperity of the oikos rather than a means of strategic alliance or an image of
one particular daughter. Maidens, beautifully dressed, gracefully presenting their rich clothes,
shyly looking down on the beholder, echo talents like weaving and dancing, characteristics
such as modesty and kindness (pls. 49b-d). Already in Homer the value of women is
measured in their beauty, but also in their skills, grace and good character.1167
The need for so strict a social identification of the korai is perhaps surprising in view
of their obvious charm: the question why they were so popular could simply be answered by
pointing out that they are marvellous. But the discrepancy between mostly male patrons and
female statues is a more serious problem. The interpretation of the korai as symbols of
prosperity works in that it clearly shows their appeal to patrons from all parts of society. This
suggests that the choice for a kore was determined by personal reasons of the patron,
relating almost entirely to social or economic station and hardly to religious motivations.
Whether such an a-religious view is justified is doubtful. Outside of Athens, korai are offered
to other goddesses such as Artemis, Demeter and Hera, but in general, no dedications of
korai were made with certainty to male deities in sixth or fifth-century Greece.1168 Thus, the
1165
Above ns. 1072-1073. Aristocrats dedicating korai: Kiron, cat. B 14, cat. V 188, kore Akr. 497
and base Akr. 3763 (a-b), EM 6484 (c ) (IG I3 787). It is not entirely certain that this is an ancestor
of the wealthy Kiron of whom Isaeus (8) speaks, but the name is rare. Cf. APF 313 no. 8442; LGPN
II, 261(1); PAA X, 344 no. 570105. Another is possibly Ameinias, if he was a trierarch at Salamis
(Hdt. 8.84): cat. B 5, cat. V 64, Akr 611 and base EM 6243, Akr. 3850. Cf. APF 25, no. 683, LGPN II
24 (1); PAA II, 66 no. 123080. For doubts about how often the powerful Athenian families formed
such alliances outside the city through marriage, Blok 2009, 149-50.
1166
E.g. Schneider 1975, 34-6.
1167
Il. 23.259-61; Queen Arete and Penelope in the Odyssey. Cf. Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, 37.
1168
Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, 33-7 and map 4. The kore of Naulochos the fisherman (cat. B 229,
above n. 1076) seems to be an undeniable exception to this, even though the actual statue of the
kore is not preserved.
261
nature of the recipient deity seems to have carried some weight in the patron’s choice of a
kore; social considerations played a part, but were not decisive.1169
Specifically in Athens, the suitability of korai for Athena is firmly rooted in the koreaspect of the goddess herself: the daughter of Zeus is a parthenos forever, a kore as opposed
to the adult wife and mother.1170 Her only offspring (of sorts) is Erichthonios, the first king of
Athens, the result of a failed assault by Hephaistos.1171 Athena’s virginity is unaffected by this
birth, but the story underlines the fundamental tie between the goddess and the Athenians.
Less virginal deities than Athena would receive korai for other reasons. Because of the
particular connection between the kore Athena and the Athenians, she is given votive korai
more often than other female deities.1172 Their abundance on the Akropolis can partly be
explained by the cultic myths of Athens, the role of the goddess in them, and the strong link
between the maiden Athena and the korai.1173 In this sense, korai are an embodiment of the
relation between the goddess and her Athenian worshippers.
Still, Athena was also given other types of sculpted dedications in archaic and earlyclassical Athens, and with these she apparently had no special cultic or mythological bond
like that of the korai. Moreover, not all genres evoke the same depth of meaning as figurative
sculpture, and some have elicited few attempts at symbolic explanation. For example, basins
were mainly functional, in daily life as well as in cult. They often stood at the entrances of
sanctuaries for ritual purification, and inscriptions are necessary to determine whether a
basin is a votive or a louterion.1174 Yet the votive basins reached a popularity similar to that
of the korai in the first quarter of the fifth century (table 5), and most are offerings to Athena,
1169
As formulated by Meyer (Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, 32): ‘…die Wahl einer Kore as
Weihgeschenk [wird] nicht durch den Bezug der Stifter, sondern durch den Bezug zur Gottheit zu
erklären sein.’
1170
As suggested by Meyer in Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, 42-6.
1171
Erichthonios was born after Athena refused the avances of Hephaistos; his semen fell to the earth
via her thigh, and impregnated Gaia. Apollod. 3.188; Paus. 3.18.13. Cf. Burkert 1985, 143;
Carpenter 1991, 74, fig. 111. Sourvinou-Inwood (1998, 249-52) proposes a similar argument for
grave korai and Persephone. Cf. next note.
1172
Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, 35-7.
1173
Cf. the myths of the daughters (parthenoi) of Kekrops, who were the caretakers of Erichthonios
and one of which was made the first priestess of Athena; and the daughter or daughters of
Erechtheus, who sacrificed themselves for the city in a war with Eleusis. Connelly 1996, passim;
Shapiro 1998, passim; Blok 2009, 150-4.
1174
Guettel Cole 2004, 45-7; in general Pimpl 1997.
262
too. If the korai were so fundamentally connected to Athena and her city, it is surprising that
here, of all places, this type was almost overtaken by a simple genre like basins.
In light of the functionality of basins, any explanation of their rise in the early fifth
century veers towards the practical.1175 But putting their religious status aside, a notable
characteristic is that they are simpler to carve than human figures; therefore, they took less
time to produce, which would have reduced their cost. The question is whether this means
that they were, so to speak, the cheap ones among the marble votives. Are they, for example,
made of low-cost local marble, or were patrons of basins less wealthy or of lower social
status than those of the more expensive votives?
The answers to these questions are mostly negative. Basins are usually in island
marble, the same material as the majority of korai.1176 A few dedicants of basins are
craftsmen; one is perhaps an upper-class official.1177 Again they belong to similar groups as
the dedicants of korai. The patrons of the latter rarely have names listed among the
pentakosiomedimnoi either, and quite a few of them are craftsmen (table 9a). In short, the
peak in basins in the early fifth century may look like a promising change in attitude of the
dedicants, but on closer inspection, similar patrons are setting up votives in similar materials.
If demand from the patrons did not fuel the popularity of basins, more practical
aspects may lie at its root. A sculptor or workshop specialising in marble basins could have
settled in Athens around the turn of the sixth to the fifth century and created somewhat of a
hype in dedication practices. It is tempting to suggest that Philon, son of Emporion, was the
driving force in this hypothetical scenario: he is the only sculptor with a preserved signature
for a basin (pl. 20c).1178 The argument must remain conjectural since the birthplaces of Philon
and his parents are unknown, but adopting it for a moment may be enlightening. Although
the depth of meaning of korai and basins cannot be compared, both genres – and others,
from equestrian statues to marble lamps – belonged to the votive religion of Athens, and so
their functions at least partly overlapped. This reduces the likelihood that differences
1175
The Persian Wars are often considered a turning point, after which many genres disappeared
because the social context which had produced them disappeared. E.g. Shapiro 2001, 10-11.
1176
Only four basins are in Pentelic marble: cat. B 284, EM 6552; cat. B 281, EM 6304; cat. B 316, EM
6553 + no.?; cat. B 310, EM 6530. All date to 500-475.
1177
The restoration of the name of Satyros (cat. B 315, EM 6536) is uncertain, and the basin is
admittedly dated to 475-450. A Satyros was hellenotamias in 443/2. Craftsmen: Onesimos son of
Smikythos, above p. 245, n. 1079; Polyxenos the fuller, cat. B 293, EM 6535 (+6555?).
1178
Cat. B 36, EM 6267, IG I3 777. The signature is on the pedestal of a lost basin, dating 500-475.
263
between these genres are based in religion. In this case, something as mundane as the
presence of one or a few specialised sculptors might have caused the upsurge in this
particular sculptural genre.
Display of status has often been considered an important reason for setting up votive
or sepulchral sculpture.1179 However, a patron’s motivation for ordering a gravestone in some
respects differed from his reasons to get a votive sculpture, and this functional distinction
can be traced in iconography and genres. In Attika, kouroi are the funerary genre in the
archaic period.1180 However, their popularity in the Attic countryside is not matched by the
material from the city. From the first three quarters of the sixth century, a few more
sepulchral than votive kouroi survive, but later, votive kouroi from the city take a slight
advantage (table 5a).1181
A counterpart to korai, kouroi have been considered expressions of aristocratic
values throughout the archaic period;1182 but kouroi and korai in sanctuaries differ from their
sepulchral equivalents with regard to the person whom they represent. A funerary kore is
likely to reflect the deceased over whose grave she is initially erected, in sex if in nothing
else, and the same applies to funerary kouroi. Inscribed bases confirm this: references to
deceased men are on bases which (as far as the record shows) all carried kouroi or reliefs, the
latter presumably with male iconography.1183 No funerary korai from Athens itself are
preserved, and examples from the Attic countryside are rare.1184 The propensity to erect
kouroi on graves, but offer korai to Athena is typical of archaic Athens.1185 Other areas, such
1179
E.g. Boardman and Kurtz 1971, 84-5; Hurwit 1985, 198-9; Renfrew 1986, 11-2, 57; D’ Onofrio
1992, 201-3; Fehr 1996, 796; 1986, Osborne 1998, 78; Smith 2007, 94-5. Cf. Viviers 1995 for
patronage of sculpture workshops by aristocratic families.
1180
Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, maps 3-5. Only few youths were set up as dedications at this time
(cf. also the following).
1181
Ibid. maps 6-7. It depends on whether early-classical youths, some in non-kouros poses or with
attributes are counted as kouroi, as was done in this study.
1182
See above n. 1155.
1183
If only because women on grave reliefs are so rare in the archaic period. See, for example, the
base of Anaxilas (cat. B 16, KM I 388) for a kouros; the base of Chairedemos for a stele with a
youth (cat. B 188, NYMM 16.174.6, the base for stele cat. G 34, NYMM 12.158); or thre one of
Xenophantes set up by his father Sophilos (cat. B 4, KM I 389) for a horse or horseman.
1184
Phrasikleia (NMA 4889), Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, 67 no. 98 (with ref.); four, possibly six
more from burial grounds in Attika, ibid. nos. 94-7, among which the monument for Phile (NMA
81, IG I3 1251). An exception may be the monument of Aischro, daughter of Zoiïlos of Samos (pl.
1e: cat. B 12, KM I 189).
1185
Meyer and Brüggemann 2007, maps 3-5.
264
as Boeotia, prefer kouroi as votives – to Apollo, a fitting recipient of such gifts – while at the
Heraion on Samos kouroi appear as votives side by side with korai.1186
Another respect in which the representations in funerary sculpture differ from those
in votive sculpture is the degree to which personal characteristics have been rendered in
marble. Korai, kouroi and horsemen hardly ever show features which refer to a person’s life,
except in the most general terms, such as the richness of the attire of the korai.1187 By
contrast, some grave reliefs of the archaic period show a remarkable degree of realism: the
athlete on the Boxer Stele (pl. 50b)1188 is scarred by many fights, his nose broken and his ear
swollen. At first glance this seems to defy the ideal of the kalos k’ agathos. But if he had won
his victory at Olympia or other Panhellenic games, the state of his face would have been proof
of his honour, a hallmark of his excellence.1189 The variety of sports on gravestones – diskos
or javelin throwing, boxing, running – shows how widely spread such ideals were (pls. 50b-d,
51a-b).1190 The only certain grave monument for an Olympic victor (pls. 43c-d) does not
preserve a name, only that he won: his mother set up the inscribed base which once carried a
stele and possibly two small columns on which statues were placed.1191 A monument like this
portrays the deceased in a way befitting the ideals of leisured life in archaic Athens:1192 to
bring glory to himself and his city by winning the greatest races of his time. This small
degree of realism in the service of honour is specific to gravestones. In this respect, then,
1186
The evidence from the sanctuaries of Apollo Ptoös and the Samian Heraion: cf. Meyer and
Brüggemann 2007.
1187
Cf. Ridgway 1982; contra Stieber 2004, ch. I. The latter sees each kore as an individual. Although
the point is valid, it must be noted that the idea of a richly clad girl applies to each example in
equal measure.
1188
Cat. G 79, KM P 1054. Cf. Ridgway 1982, 119.
1189
Kyle 1996, passim; Smith 2007, esp. 83-4, 94-5, 100-1. Ridgway 1982, 118-23 discusses a
cauliflower ear in the Rayet head (Ny Carslberg Glyptothek 418, cat. G 100), which is otherwise
considered an aristocratic monument. The explanation may be the same. Cf. also Robertson
1985, 169-70 for the suggestion that statues would be of higher religious standing than reliefs,
which in his view are of a more personal nature.
1190
E.g. of 575-550, cat. G 60, NMA 38, 83 rel. with diskophoros (pl. 51b). Of 550-525: cat. G 90,
NMA 5826, relief with athlete and aryballos (pl. 50d); cat. G 95, NMA 1772, relief with a man
throwing a javelin (pl. 51a).
1191
Cat. B 263, KM I 322, IG I3 1213. It seems to suggest that the mother set up the statue; there is
some conjecture about Megakles being the victor in question. See above n. 1024. Another stele,
KM P 747 (cat. G 92) shows a young man with a wreath who might of course be a victor; but since
wreathes were also common cult attire, and the inscription is lost, this cannot be ascertained.
1192
Osborne 20042, 213-5; Smith 2007, 94 and others in Hornblower and Morgan 2007 on Pindar
and patronage.
265
dedicated and sepulchral sculpture differed. It seems likely that those who commissioned the
sculpture had the most influence on this. The occurrence of realism, even if only in its
generic form (cauliflower ear equals boxer), suggests that a direct reference to the
deceased’s life on a gravestone was acceptable, while in votives it was not.
One would expect display in cemeteries to be complemented by votives of the
Archaic Akropolis, but as it has turned out, this is hardly the case. The relevant votives are
from different groups in society, and only the patron’s wealth can be more or less measured
by their votives, not their social status.1193 The only exception to this are the iconographic
renderings of patrons’ crafts on dedications, in general of the late-archaic period. Higher
social rank, such as that of winners of contests from Olympic Games to the choregia, is
seldom clear from votives or grave memorials.1194 After all, any man who was good enough
could take part in athletic contests, if he could afford it.1195 By contrast, some competitions
like the dithyramb or certain dramatic festivals were more exclusive for citizens and their
prizes confirm the status as well as the affluence of those performing the liturgy.1196
Prices of sculpture put a limit on the number of people in Athens who could order
marble statues or stelai for themselves. Citizen status or a lack thereof did not prevent
anyone from dedicating votives or setting up gravestones; nor did it cause any trends in, for
example, iconography. Moreover, it is at the very least unlikely that any genres were the
exclusive domain of the leisured citizens of Athens. Apparently, neither dedicating to the
city’s patron goddess, nor presenting her with korai, nor erecting these on the Akropolis
were activities restricted exclusively to Athenians. Just the fact that ethnica were used
relatively freely is an indication that Athenian citizenship was not a major factor in the types
of monuments which patrons chose to set up. Furthermore, some patrons of sculpture
worked in various crafts. Clearly, not all of these men and women belonged to the upper two
Solonic property classes. Thus, no connection can be established between the social
background of patrons and their choices in genres, iconography or the occasions at which
they set up their sculpture. But even though their gravestones and votives thus seem very far
1193
For the cost of sculpture, above pp. 193 ff.
1194
For votives of victors in Olympia see e.g. Eckstein 1969; Semmlinger 1974; Kyle 1996, 102-23.
1195
Kyle 1996, 115-6; Wijma 2010, 30. So could women, but only in a few events (for example, the
Heraia at Olympia).
1196
The Dionysian competitions were performed by citizens (Ath. Pol. 56.3); in the choral agon, the
Kleisthenic tribes competed (Burkert 1996, 58-60; Slings 2005, 49); cf. Osborne 20042, 216;
Wijma 2010, passim; and above ns. 1030-1031.
266
removed from the city’s political organisation, some formal restrictions were imposed on the
conditions for erecting sculpture.
6
L AWS
AND RELI GIOUS REGULATIONS
In the lifespan of sculptures, many moments were emphatically religious in nature. A statue
or stele was either the subject of ritual, or its instrument. The practice of setting up votive
and grave monuments had the intention of communication: between gods and worshippers
or the living and the dead. Since sanctuaries and burial grounds were public places,
communication also took place between the living and the living, and regulation was needed
to ensure that the sacred was treated appropriately. Thus, sanctuaries could set out rules
about dedication, and the expenditure on funerary ritual was sometimes curbed by the city’s
authorities. The nature of these restrictions on ritual practices changed over time, for each of
the three types of communication, and this is reflected in the sculpture record.
When erecting offerings at sanctuaries, procedure is of particular relevance to status
display: if a dedication and its inscription were difficult to see, it would not be noticed, let
alone impress one’s fellow-Athenians.1197 The size of the votive would help, but a good spot
in a sanctuary was important.1198 However, how much official attention this display aspect of
placement received is doubtful. The few sacred regulations which survive from ancient Greece
address far more mundane problems: a third-century decree from Rhodes targets problems
caused by a multitude of requests to place votives in the sanctuary of Asklepios; in Miletus,
enthusiastic dedicants apparently had to be stopped from nailing their votive plaques to the
columns and walls of the Apollo temple, and by doing so damaging them.1199 For sixth and
fifth-century Athens, there is no contemporary evidence about the practical organisation of
dedicatory activity, but it is reasonable to assume that there were rules, and that they
1197
For an analysis of the visibilty of writing on various types of votives, see De Polignac 2005.
1198
‘Good’ being a flexible term: in Delphi, a good location could be the one further from the temple,
but close to the votive of a rivalling polis (Pedley 2005, 150). Cf. Aleshire 1992, 92; Scott
forthcoming, ch. 2.
1199
LSS 107 (Rhodes); 123 (Miletus). Cf. Lupu 2005, 31.
267
addressed similar problems as later sacred laws did:1200 the protection and placement of
votives and the conditions under which their reuse was acceptable.1201
The Akropolis of the late-archaic era must have presented an overwhelming sight, a
forest of bronze, marble and possibly terracotta statues on bases, or raised on columns,1202
in all kinds of shapes, poses, colours and, one would hope, grouped together in certain areas
rather than just spread over the hilltop at the dedicants’ discretion. The crowdedness of the
temenos could partly be remedied by recasting bronze votives, especially when damaged, to
create new sculpture or cult equipment.1203 Since marble could not be reused within the
limitations of the deity’s sacred ownership, stone offerings must have filled up many a
sanctuary, especially relatively small sites, for example, the Athenian Asklepieion (map
6a).1204 Moreover, large bronze groups like the quadriga of Pronapes could only have been
admitted onto the sanctuary in limited numbers, to ensure sufficient access to worshippers
during sacrifices and festivals. It was probably the mass of cheap, small donations which
cluttered sanctuaries most, inciting the irritation of Plato and undoubtedly exasperating those
in charge of organising the sanctuary space.1205 In the case of the Athenian Akropolis, where
a great many activities were strictly regulated,1206 the choice of location for votives was
probably not left to the patrons.
1200
Cf. Neer 2001; id. 2004; and Scott 2007, for the politics of placement at Delphi.
1201
Lupu 2005, 31. Obviously, this applies to metal.
1202
Van Straten 1992, 248-53 argues that smaller reliefs also must have stood on pillars. In
depictions of reliefs e.g. on vases, this usually is true, but few pillars from the fifth century show
signs of having carried stelai, and those that do date c. 500-450: cat. B 199, EM 6303, fr. of pillar,
son of Lysippos; cat. B 255, EM 8169, fr. of pillar, Aristomache and Charikleia; cat. B 244, Akr.
no.?, fr. of base, Phaidros son of Prothymides of Kephale; cat. B 203, EM 6253, fr. of pillar,
Mikythe. The small number of supports for marble sculpture from the late fifth century is curious,
if marble stelai were so generally put on pillars as Van Straten suggests.
1203
Thuc. 2.13.2-5; Linders 1987, passim (in particular for the use of sacred statues in times of –
economic – duress in Athens, under the condition that would return them later on); id. 1991, 1158; id. 1996, 122; Aleshire 1991, 83, 104-5; 1992, 97-98; Lupu 2005, 32 (the example is from the
third century BC).
1204
Linders 1987, 115, 120-1. It remains uncertain whether the Athenians would have removed the
marble dedications of the archaic period to build new temples, had the Persians not damaged
them. For cleaning operations (in the Athenian Asklepieion) see Aleshire 1991, 104-8.
1205
Pl. Leg. X. 909e-910a. An additional problem was that they did not add to the sanctuaries’ wealth.
1206
Németh 1994, passim for sanctuary regulations. Scott forthcoming, ch. 2 suggests that at Delphi,
the officials of the sanctuaries must have had the right to approve placement of dedications. Cf.
Jacquemin 1999, 101-3.
268
Once a statue was set up, the question of its upkeep arose. One or two early-classical votive
sculptures from the Akropolis were repaired or rededicated, as illustrated by fragments of a
pillar for a bronze statue by Theodoros and Onesimos son of Smikythos, but in general it
seems that rededicating marble sculpture only became common practice in later times.1207
Ancient authors sometimes mention involvement of wealthy individuals (or groups) in
maintenance or restoration, but this usually is with regard to buildings.1208 In sculpture, cult
statues are most common to receive special maintenance. A possible, though late example
regards the festival of Aphrodite Pandemos: her shrine had to be cleaned and painted, and
the e(/dh (cult statues) washed.1209 In the sanctuary of Artemis e)n Nh/swi on Delos in Hellenistic
times, the cult statue was washed with water and saltpetre and rubbed with oil, after which it
was perfumed with rose essence.1210 Like the careful cleaning and attiring of the statue of
Athena Polias at the annual Plynteria festival, these are first and foremost cultic activities.1211
Nevertheless, practical upkeep was in these cases included in the rites (painting the shrine,
rubbing with oil), offering a glimpse of the care with which cult statues were kept in order.
Whether ordinary votives also were repainted and repaired is not known from ancient
sources, but they are unlikely to have received such tender care as some cult statues did. The
procedure applied to the statue of Artemis may also have aimed to preserve the paint on the
statue, as Vitruvius’ describes in the beneficial effects of ganosis. The treatment with heated
wax and some oil would prevent vermillion from turning black ‘just as naked marble statues
1207
Akr. 4184, cat. B 21 (cf. above p. 1). The rededication was not necessarily the result of damage in
the Persian wars. Cf. Beazley 1944, 23 n. 1; Kissas 2000, 123-4 no. 52, Keesling 2005, 401-3.
For later practices cf. Lupu 2005, 32-3.
1208
Plu. Mor. 852b, on Lykourgos’ restoration not only of buildings but also of votives in the second
half of the fourth century. Cf. Linders 1996, 123. A fourth-century decree from Chios stipulates
that an oikos will be built by the phratry of the Klytidai, to house statues and/or cultic implements
previously kept in private houses (Lupu 2005, 37: Sokolowski, LSCG 118). Closer to the research
period: Telemachos founded Asklepios’s cult (Clinton 1994; Camp 2001, 122); Themistokles built
a shrine to Artemis Aristoboule (Plu. Them. 22.1-2; Camp 2001, 61-2; Umholtz 2002, 287-8).
1209
Lupu 2005, 39; Sokolowski LSCG 39. Cf. also Bettinetti 2001, 52-4 (e(/doj) and 147 (Aphrodite).
1210
Bettinetti 2001, 144-5 quotes IG XI.2, 161, lines 92 and 95-6 of the early third century BC..
1211
Xen. Hell. I.4.1.2; Plu. Alc. 34.1. Cf. Simon 1983, 46-8; Burkert 1985, 79, 226; Parker 1996, 3078 (for the Plynteria and Kallynteria); Bettinetti 2001, 147-53. The day when the statue was
undressed, cleaned and veiled, awaiting a clean peplos or chiton, was an unlucky day on which no
business should be conducted. For the performace of the ritual, two girls from the genos of the
Praxiergidae were appointed. Similarly, in Olympia, the descendants of Pheidias held the
hereditary right to clean the cryselephantine Zeus. The office was called faidunth/j: references in
Bettinetti 2001, 143-4; a late example in Athens: Jeffery 1948, 92-3.
269
are treated’.1212 In many cases, the bright colours of archaic statues must have faded, thus
impairing their appearance in the eyes of the public. If the Athenians wished to perpetuate
their gift-giving to the deity, they should not let the statue deteriorate; but there is no
evidence of obligations imposed by sanctuaries on the patrons or their heirs in this respect.
It seems that contrary to bronzes and precious metals, marble votives could be left
undisturbed in sanctuaries for a long time.1213
Votives and gravestones were embedded in their religious and public environments
to a different extent. While dedications may have had to fulfil certain conditions set by the
city or by sanctuaries, burial in Athens was less formal or official: for example, no priests
presided over the burial grounds.1214 Presumably, votives, or at least the location where they
were to stand, required permission from the sanctuary, while no evidence suggests that there
were limits on burial other than commonly accepted rules regarding piety, the polluting effect
of death or the ritual traditions performed by family or friends.1215 Graves had to be located
outside the city and away from certain sanctuaries; the cemeteries along Athens’ main exit
roads were known to every inhabitant of the city as a place of burial.1216 Funerary rites, and
perhaps also the care of grave monuments, had to comply with appropriate custom, but
whether the fulfilment of these rites was checked and if so by whom and how is unknown.1217
Once the grave was in place, the erection of a funeral marker over it seems to have been less
constrained by regulations than that of a votive statue.
That being said, the scope of funerary practices was restricted several times in the
history of Athens. Legislation targeted displays of wealth and alliance which, one has to
assume, funerals were the setting of in the archaic period.1218 Lavish burial rites are often
1212
Vit. De arch. VII.7.2-3. The use of the word naked is somewhat confusing, suggesting that the
statues Vitruvius is referring to were not painted. This must be incorrect: there would be little
point in comparing walls with sculpture if vermillion or other paint were not applied on the latter.
1213
Above n. 1208. Also Linders 1992 and 1996, and Sinn 1996 for the use of the gold Nikai from the
Akropolis and precious metal vessels used in cult and during festivals, as a means of displaying
the city’s power.
1214
Garland 1985, 121; id. 1989, 1.
1215
E.g. burial was not to take place within the city boundaries: Rohde 1961 (1897), 340; Young
19511; Burkert 1985, 79-80; Garland 1985, 38-48; id. 1989, passim; Patterson 2006, 53-6 (on
the Kerameikos).
1216
For a discussion of the social implications of this position see e.g. Blok 2007.
1217
Humphreys 1980, 98-9, 102; Garland 1985, 21-37; id. 1989, 3-5; Blok 2006, passim.
1218
Garland 1985, 21-37; Morris 1987, 33; id. 1992, 33; Shapiro 1991, passim; Bernhard 2003, 88;
Blok 2006, in particular 229-40.
270
considered an emphatically aristocratic phenomenon.1219 Traditionally, Solon – if the
supposed laws are his – is thought to have limited expenditure on the trappings of funerals,
such as sacrifice, numbers of flute-players and grave gifts, but apparently he regulated
neither gravestones nor burial plots.1220 However, it has recently been suggested that the
laws targeted religious pollution of the family or even the entire polis, rather than aristocratic
display or attempts to rally for aristocratic factions among attendants of funerals.1221
According to Cicero, ‘sometime after’ Solon’s intervention, a law was drawn up which
did target grave markers, and stipulated that no more than ten men were allowed work on
the monument for three days; and moreover, that it was not permitted ‘to place herms, as
they call them, on the grave’.1222 Moreover, the dead were only to be praised at public
funerals. This legislation, known as the post aliquanto law is problematic because it rings of
the sumptuary laws passed by Demetrios of Phaleron in 317 BC. Cicero’s distance from the
classical period and his own experience of Athens may have merged the two occasions to
him.1223 If the post aliquanto law existed, its date remains problematic: suggestions run from
the middle of the sixth century until the Persian Wars.1224
It is tempting to try and connect the quantities of gravestones to funerary
legislation.1225 If it was Peisistratos who tried to curb the expenditure on gravestones he was
1219
Boardman and Kurtz 1971, 84-5; Humphreys 1980, 123; Day 1989, 21-2; Shapiro 1991, 644;
Meyer 1993, 107-9; Blok 2006, 197-8.
1220
Cf. Scafuro 2006 for a recent discussion of the Solon’s authorship of sixth-century Athenian laws.
Solon did not target the plot’s location or size. Diod. 1.9.4; Plu. Sol. 21.5-7. See also Kurtz and
Boardman 1971, 89-90; Stupperich 1977, 71-85; Humphreys 1980, especially 99-100; Morris
1992, 129; Meyer 1993, 106-7; Shapiro 1991, 630-1; Blok 2006, 197-206 and passim; Bernhardt
2003, 89-100.
1221
Blok 2006, esp. 229-33, 237-40. Men’s attendance at funerals was not restricted by Solonian
legislation, whereas that of women was. This being the case, it seems unlikely that the aim of the
law was to prevent factionalist strife emerging at funerals. In favour of political or status-related
motivations of aristocrats: a/o. Garland 1989, 2-5, 15. Taking into account issues of pollution;
Humphreys 1980, 99-101; Meyer 1993, 107, 118 (late-fifth c.); Stears 2000, 27-9. Cicero
suggests that Solon also aimed to restrict excessive signs of grief by women in public (Leg. II.5966). To this view Meyer 1993, 106; contra Morris 1992-3, 39; Blok 226-9.
1222
Cic. Leg. 2.64-5.
1223
Blok 2006, 240. Bernhardt 2003, 75, argues that Plutarch (or his source) had already mixed up the
funerary legislation by Solon and the restrictions on grave monuments by Demetrios of Phaleron,
possibly adding an in-between stage that took elements from both earlier and later events.
1224
For an overview of the main directions of the discussion see Blok 2006, 240-3, esp. n. 167.
1225
Gradual enforcing of the post aliquanto law, of Kleisthenic or Themistoklean date: Shapiro 1991,
647 (with the nuance that public burial was of more consequence). Cf. Stears 2000.
271
ignored on a monumental scale,1226 for in the third quarter of the sixth century, the total of
marble grave sculptures and bases increases (table 1b). If it was Kleisthenes,1227 many
gravestones must have been set up before 508/507, for the total number of gravestones
rises further in the final quarter of the sixth century. After the start of the fifth century,
funerary monuments certainly decrease in numbers, yet they do not disappear completely
(table 1).1228 Considering that numbers of votives also fall in this period, there is no reason to
assume that the lapse in gravestones must be caused by a law which exclusively targeted
grave markers.
Cicero describes the post aliquanto law to state that no opus tectorium was
permitted; this is commonly interpreted as referring to the mounds, or to the mudbrick
structures which appeared in the Kerameikos in the sixth century.1229 In fact, the idea of a law
altogether prohibiting grave markers in Athens is unlikely. First, the archaeological evidence
does not support it. Gravestones do not entirely disappear in any quarter of the fifth century.
Their numbers are strongly reduced, but the record shows that not everyone settled for
restraint.1230 Some burials of the mid-fifth century, one of clearly Homeric overtones, reflect
the same stance.1231 Second, a compelling case has been made for a restrictive rather than
prohibitive or prescriptive nature of Greek funerary laws.1232
1226
Peisistratean date: e.g. Richter 1961, 38-9; id. 1945, 152; Boardman 1955, 53; cf. Harrison 1956,
44-5; Shapiro 1991, 631; Bernhardt 2003, 81.
1227
See Harrison 1956, 44; Garland 1989, Shapiro 1991, 631, 646-6; Meyer 1993, 106-7; and
Bernhardt 2003, 81.
1228
Cat. G 81, KM P 1455, head of youth; and cat. G 87, KM 267, fr. of kouros. Both pieces were found
quite recently. Other finds from c. 500-475 are a lion from the Agora (cat. G 106, AM S 1942), of
which the funerary status is not entirely certain, and basins (cat. G 131, 132 and 134, all from the
Kerameikos). Stears 2000, 31 lists four monuments of 475-450 (dates IG I3). Two are dated later
in the present study (IG I3 1280, cat. G 147; and 1351, cat. G 145, based on arguments presented
by Salta 1991, 169-72), one falls outside of the current topographical limits (IG I3 1280, found
between Athens and Piraeus). A public burial with a marble marker, of the proxenos Protagoras of
Selymbria, dates to the 460s, but this is more a public monument (Kerameikos in situ, IG I3 1154;
Knigge 1988, 98; Morris 1992, 141-2; Wijma 2010, 256-7; also above n. 208).
1229
Cic. Leg. 2.64. Cf. Richter 1945, 152; id. AGA, 37-9 (interpreting sepulchrum as stele); Boardman
1955, 53; Boardman and Kurtz 1977, 122; Kleine 1973, 61; Morris 1987, 152-4; id. 1998, 64-5;
cf. Houby-Nielsen 1995, in part. 152-64 for the tumuli.
1230
E.g. cat. G 81, KM P 1455, head of youth. Gradual, self-imposed restraint by the Athenian elite is
suggested by Morris 1992, passim, and 1998, 64-5.
1231
Morris 1992, 132-4, id. 1998, 65; Stears 2000, 31-3, 47.
1232
Garland 1989, 15; his argument is based on funerary legislation from Greece in general, not
Athens alone. Interestingly Blok 2006, who is even more complete in her overview of ancient
272
Attic tombstones of the sixth and fifth centuries and especially of the fourth, show that the
Athenians were, or became, quite fond of their sculpted grave markers in the course of this
period.1233 Outright prohibition of gravestones would have aroused much resentment – more
than what is reflected in those few ancient texts which mention the post aliquanto law.
Cicero’s is the only account of it as a separate event; the closest contemporary source is
Plato. His references to regulation are utopian, and even then he refrains from outright
prohibition: the Laws allow for a mound and a stele with a four-line epigram.1234 Thus, the
suggestion that the post aliquanto law is an entanglement of sixth-century legislation and
the more substantially documented sumptuary laws of Demetrios of Phaleron in the late
fourth century is supported by literary evidence as well as the grave monuments in the
present study.1235
The development of dedications in this period provides an interesting comparison.
Votive monuments are most numerous in the first quarter of the fifth century; gravestones
reach their highest peak a quarter century before (chart 1d). Where votives in the first quarter
of the fifth century still go up, they decrease by more than three quarters in the following
quarter century (table 1b).1236 In gravestones, the main fall occurs earlier, in the first quarter
of the fifth century; the timing and the absolute numbers are different, but the rate is similar.
These trends bring to mind the varying rates of preservation of gravestones and votives, and
the comparison of the Akropolis and other sixth and fifth-century find spots of sculpture in
Athens, for example, the Themistoklean wall.1237 Many gravestones of Athens may as yet be
undiscovered; many are lost. From this perspective, the presence of any sepulchral sculpture
from the period just after the Persian War must serve as a warning against the notion that
there were funerary laws which had great influence, or that they were widely obeyed.
Greek funerary legislation, but whose purpose is a different one, comes to a similar conclusion
(see next note).
1233
Cf. also Meyer 1993, 117-8 for the effect which the actions of the Thirty Tyrants had on
perceptions of death and commemoration as rights of the Athenian citizen, especially in oratory.
1234
Pl. Leg. 958e-959a: Xw=ma de\ mh\ xou=n u(yhlo/teron pe/nte a)ndrw=n e)/rgon, e)n pe/nq )h(me/raij
a)potelou/menon: li/qina de\ e)pisth/mata mh\ me/izw poiei=n h)= o(/sa de/xesqai tw=n tou= teteleukthko/toj
e)gkw/ma bi/ou mh\ plei/w teta/rrwn h(rwikw=n. ‘The soil must not be piled higher than five men can
manage by working five days. Stone slabs must not be made bigger than they need to be to
accommodate a eulogy of the deceased’s career of not more than the usual hexameters.’ (transl.
T. J. Saunders in Cooper and Hutchinson 1997).
1235
Stears 2001, 43, 47-8; Blok 2006, 243.
1236
From 201 in 500-475 to 39 in 475-450. Grave monuments: from 47 in 525-500 to 7 in 500-475.
1237
Above ch. II.2, p. 38 and further.
273
If laws cannot explain the development of sculpture, the social competition which it is
supposed to have targeted may. The expenditure on grave monuments is linked to that of the
contents of the graves: times of display in one usually alternate with the other.1238 The most
monumental mounds (pl. 51c, map 6b) in the Kerameikos were topped by tall stelai, crowned
by sphinxes or anthemia; they date to the seventh and the first half of the sixth centuries.
After this, mudbrick tombs were popular until the end of the sixth century.1239 In the
contents of the graves, lavishness gives way to a tide of restraint around the turn of the
century.1240 Exceptions, such as a mound for a single grave from the 490s, do exist, but
generally burials were dug into existing mounds more and more often, for example, in
Grabhügel G or the Südhügel in the Kerameikos.1241
The mounds in the Kerameikos have been interpreted as burial grounds for male
members of the elite, who provided funeral rites for each other within a circle of hetairoi.1242
In Attika, this custom of many burials in a mound arose at the same time when grave stelai
first became popular. The deceased were bound to each other by guest friendship or
symposiastic connections, and shared social values rather than genealogy: some may have
been non-Athenians.1243 Through common pursuits of athletics and warfare, this
arrangement can be seen as a prefiguration of state burial later in the fifth century.1244
In view of the social setting of the burials in the Kerameikos, the prominence of war
and athletics in funerary iconography is not surprising. Doubtlessly, the formalised
competition at festivals and at Panhellenic games carried enormous weight in ancient Greece;
1238
Morris 1992, 103-27 for an analysis of the grave gifts, 132-8 for the tombstones. Cf. also
Humphreys 1980, 123.
1239
Humphreys 1980, 106-7; Morris 1987, 222-33; id. 1992, 132-5; Houby-Nielsen 1995, in
particular 153-6.
1240
Morris 1998, 64.
1241
Id. 132-8; Humphreys 1980, 106-8; Houby-Nielsen 1995, 155.
1242
Houby-Nielsen 1995, 160-2; cf. Garland 1989, 5; Blok 2007, 321 n. 38. Contra Patterson 2006,
especially for the classical period.
1243
Houby-Nielsen 1995, 160-1; contends that not all mounds were used by this kind of burial
groups; others belonged to families (ibid. 159) or wider kin groups. Even then, the social value of
the deceased is the common denominator in the clusters of burials, not their position in the family
(ibid. 142-6; contra Humphreys 1980, 108). Periods of little activity just before and after the midsixth century, she explains by conflict arising from the aristocratic ideology, inherent to guest
friendship among the upper classes of different poleis, which by default posed a threat to the
coherence of the city-state. Cf. Buxton 1994, 29-30; also Kistler 1998, 106-12 for the early Iron
Age; Blok 2007 and 2010; and Patterson 2006 for the classical period.
1244
Houby-Nielsen 1995, 163; cf. Meyer 1993, 108.
274
in Athens, sepulchral monuments confirm this.1245 As was discussed above, athletics feature
frequently on archaic gravestones, especially if kouroi are considered as symbols of this type
of agon.1246 Of the various competitions, horse-racing was the most prestigious. Thucydides
describes how Alkibiades was charged for his expenditure on race-horses, because he used
them to gain personal glory.1247 Alkibiades retorted that his victories at Olympia had
enhanced the stature of Athens rather than his own, and was acquitted. Ironically, his status
of olympianikos swayed the public, thus proving the original charge correct.
Although the Athenians clearly appreciated the ideals of athletic prowess or
excellence in war, not all extant grave monuments belong to this sphere. For example, a few
gravestones from the sixth century depict women seated or enthroned.1248 Contrary to kouroi
or korai, they are adults.1249 In fact, the iconography of women on archaic grave monuments
is similar to that of the sculpture of the second half of the fifth century, with one difference:
in the earlier period, seated women were sometimes carved in the round, too, while from the
fifth century such figures have not been found. This is not necessarily an indication of
decreasing status of women in the classical period: many marble genres in the round
disappear from the fifth-century record, including seated (and mortal) men. Instead, the
iconography is transferred to reliefs along with many other types.1250
1245
See above n. 1024. Also Kyle 1998, passim; Morgan 2007, passim.
1246
Above n. 1190, pl. 49b and d, 50a-b. Also Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 235-6; cf. Smith 2007, 87101 for early-classical equivalents. Cf. also the diskos of Gnathon, c. 550-525; cat. G 170, BM 935
and e.g. the relief with an athlete, cat. G 90, NMA 5826.
1247
Thuc. 6.16.2-3; see also Davies 1984, 98-102; Kyle 1998, 118; Rhodes 2000, 470-1; Finley
2004, 163.
1248
Apart from two seated women which could theoretically be argued to have stood on men’s graves,
though this is very unlikely (cat. G 86, NMA 7, c. 575-550; and cat. G 26, AM S 23, from 525-500,
one fr. of a relief by Aristokles, cat. G 113, KM P 1265 probably with an enthroned woman, in
analogy to a relief from Aegina (IG I3 1229bis; Willemsen, AM 85 (1970) 36-41 pl. 15.2; Ridgway
1993, 244, 259 n. 6.40 no. 2). The idea that enthroned figures represent heroised dead seems
unlikely (Houby-Nielsen 1995, 162). Two archaic bases for grave stelai are for women: cat. B 154,
EM 13486 (Kleito); cat. B 265, KM no. ? (Melissa).
1249
Contrary to korai, which are always young, and hardly ever grave markers in Attika. This division
of adult women for gravestones and girls for votives seems to support the view that the former
are more personal and the latter more generic or symbolic; and that grave sculpture therefore
offers more personal choice in genre and iconography. One stele, probably a votive, shows an
adult woman with a girl: NMA 36, cat. V 147.
1250
Osborne 20041, convincingly links high numbers of grave stele with women in 450-400 to the
introduction of the Periklean citizen law. A similar argument about the role of women in religious
rites, in Borgers 2008.
275
Among the recorded deceased of the sixth century, quite some are non-Athenians; they were
given not just sufficient, but expensive burial rites and monuments. In the fourth century,
sources attest that the family or (if there was no family) the demarch was responsible for
burial of the dead in his deme, though a gravestone was apparently not obligatory in these
cases.1251 Metics could only own land in Attika by special permission, the enktesis, and thus
the burial plots of metics in the cemeteries around the city could not be purchased by them
or their families.1252 Nonetheless, since many non-Athenians were buried in Attic soil in the
sixth and fifth centuries, acquaintances who were citizens may have obtained the land for
them.1253 But it is more likely that the plot did not have to be bought: denying families the
right to bury their dead (especially if transport to their city of origin was difficult) would be in
severe breach of standards of piety at the time.1254 On the other hand, fourth-century court
cases make it clear that periboloi were considered the property of the family who buried their
deceased relatives there, and could be used as evidence of citizenship in court cases.1255
When precisely burial land and tombs became thus politically charged is uncertain. The name
inscriptions on archaic gravestones as well as Solonic funeral legislation might be early
examples of cases where the Athenians began to associate such meaning to burials and
sepulchral markers.1256
Care of tombstones is relatively well attested, especially in the classical period.
White-ground lekythoi offer evidence of visits to the tomb,1257 when stelai are cleaned and
decorated with coloured taenia, and sometimes with other objects such as swords, lyres and
1251
D. 43.57-8; cf. Ath. Pol. 55.3; D. 57.28. Cf. Garland 1985, 104; id. 1989, 4; Patterson 2006, 4852. Oliver 2000, 63 mentions a non-citizen who performed funerary duties (IG II2 1672), so this
was also possible.
1252
Whitehead 1977, 71-2, 117-20; Sinclair 1991, 29-30; Patterson 2006, 56. Cf. ns. 821, 865.
1253
Beside the non-citizen war dead who were given public burials: Stupperich 1977, 4-12; Whitehead
1977, 82-6; Clairmont PN, passim; Meyer 1993, 108, 11, 118-20.
1254
Blok 2007, 324.
1255
For an extensive overview of single-family burials in periboloi of the Classical period, Humphreys
1980, 114-21; also Bergemann 1997, passim; Stears 2000, 42.
1256
If Houby-Nielsen’s view is accepted, burial groups of the archaic age can be seen as predecessors
to the arrangements for burial by the demarchos, as institutionalised in fourth-century
democracy. For justified criticism of the exclusivity of Athenian ‘citizen cemeteries’, cf. Patterson
2006. De Polignac 2005 for the possibility that earlier in the archaic period, patrons of votive
monuments were memorised by sanctuary staff.
1257
Cf. Burkert 1985, 193-4; Garland 1985, 115-8; Oakley 2004, passim. Cf. also the analysis of
Helmis 2001 of rites at gravestones in cases of murder.
276
diskoi (pls. 52a-b). There is some evidence of annual washing and anointing of grave markers
during the festivals of the dead.1258 Perhaps with these rites and the decoration of the stele
also came maintenance of the paintwork.1259 Alternatively, the anointment may have been
symbolic. In any case, if the decoration of a stele faded, especially one that was decorated in
paint rather than in relief, the family to whom the peribolos belonged would have appeared
negligent: a strong incentive for regular maintenance, especially if other family members died
and had to be buried in the same grave mound or peribolos.
Practices like tending the grave and its tombstone do not appear in vase paintings of
the archaic period. Instead, they show scenes of violent death, of the rites conducted during
the funeral: mourning over the body, the ekphora, or funeral games.1260 Three archaic diskoi
look like the ones attached to gravestones in scenes on the lekythoi; but there is a gap in
time between the two. One diskos from the third quarter of the sixth century belonged to a
certain Gnathon, while another one or perhaps two date to the final quarter of that century:
these were ‘from the funeral games at Eria’ for a man called Telesarchos.1261 They may have
been buried with him or fixed to his gravestone, as they appear in white-ground vase
painting. The question is: were funerary diskoi handled differently in the sixth than in the
fifth century, or did the iconography change? Are the details of scenes at the tomb on
lekythoi to be taken literally?1262 More than the iconography, burial practice itself seems to
change: funeral games for individuals disappeared in the fifth century, marble diskoi no
longer occur in tombs, and vase painting shows the arrangement and decoration of
monuments instead of funeral games or the activities of the dead.1263 If anything, it seems
that gravestones become more important as focal points, while declining in monumentality.
Someone must have kept the burial grounds of ancient Athens in order. It is unclear
whether anyone was responsible for the placement of graves and thus of gravestones:
perhaps the nomophylakes or law wardens, exercised some control over commemoration and
1258
Plu. Arist. 21.2-5 (at Plataia, the stele is washed and anointed with myrrh); Burkert 1985, 193-4;
Garland 1985, 107-10, 115-20: cf. the washing of the statues of Aphrodite Pandemos, n. 1209.
1259
Garland 1985, 104, 115-6.
1260
Cf. Shapiro 1991; Pedrina 2001; Oakley 2004; Blok 2006.
1261
Gnathon: cat. G 170, BM 935. Telesarchos: cat. G 172, NYMM 1985.11.4. The third diskos was for
an unknown man, and is decorated with a horseman in paint (cat. G 171, BMFA 1987.621).
1262
Oakley 2004, 191-214.
1263
Morris 1992-93, passim.
277
burial, if their office included this task.1264 Apparently, the practical organisation of burial
grounds was not always regulated: the Kerameikos was used for more purposes than
interments alone,1265 and other cemeteries must have been as well.1266 Perhaps this relative
freedom in sepulchral matters created room for a disaster like the corpses left unburied
during the Plague.1267 Less dramatically, it allowed patrons more freedom than they had in
the dedication of votives. They used this space only in a few respects, such as the materials:
in iconography and genre, their preferences were remarkably uniform, at least in the second
half of the fifth century.
Dedication seems to have been more subject to regulation than setting up
gravestones, not from the state, but from sanctuary authorities. Sacred laws are preserved
mostly for the late-classical and Hellenistic period, but it is likely that similar rules existed
before then. The appointment of a place to put one’s votive must have been under the
control of sanctuary officials, even if information about the practicalities of dedication or
subsequent maintenance of votives is meagre to say the least. In the latter, expenditure was
obviously not limited by legislation: to the temples, sumptuous votives were welcome, and
the fact that a deity was the recipient prevented criticism on the patrons’ self-expression
which was also part of the dedication. In gravestones there may have been guidelines, but the
existence of laws curbing the size or complexity of grave markers in Athens before Demetrios
of Phaleron may well be incorrect. Neither the sculptural nor the epigraphic evidence in this
study offer any support for the existence of such legislation, and certainly not for their
efficacy. Although the sepulchral and the divine constituted two very different spheres, the
ways in which the inhabitants of Athens handled the sculpted monuments belonging to each
were similar in many respects.
1264
Pl. Leg. 9.59d-e; also Xen. Oec. 9.14. Cf. Stears 2000, 47.
1265
Knigge 1988, e.g. 164-6; Patterson 2006, 56; cf. Stissi 2002, 39 for further references.
1266
A site-by-site discussion of grave monuments from cemeteries around Athens in Salta 1991; also
Bergemann 1994; in general, Travlos 1971; Camp 2000.
1267
Thuc. 2.52.2-4. Cf. Humphreys 1980, 112; Shapiro 1991, 656; Stears 2000, 54.
278
7
C ONCLUSION :
P ATRONAGE AND THE LIMITS OF SCULPTURE
The relation between patrons and their sculptural commissions was evidently complex, yet
clear trends can be discerned in the use of genres and to some extent in iconography of
votive and grave sculpture in the sixth and fifth centuries. Athenian patrons favoured votive
korai in the approximately half century around the turn of the sixth to the fifth century, and
reliefs dominated both for sepulchral and votive purposes in the second half of the fifth
century. The famed beauty of these genres sometimes eclipses other types of sculpture, such
as basins; yet these were almost as popular as korai in the first quarter of the fifth century.
The landed nobility of Athens was certainly not the only group of patrons of
sculpture. In fact, rather few known members of Athens’ upper two or three property classes
feature in the votive or grave inscriptions of the sixth and fifth centuries. Dedications were
offered by tradesmen and some tradeswomen on the Akropolis from the mid-sixth century
onwards. These marble dedications draw their materials, genres and complexity from the
same stock as the gifts of aristocratic patrons. Their inscriptions show a professional pride
that belies any self-consciousness on the part of the craftsmen.
In the fifth century, professions in inscriptions decline, but this may well be a result
of a general decrease of name inscriptions on marble votive monuments at this time. The
archaic (and a few classical) craftsmen who advertised their names in this way did just that,
they advertised. Not only was an inscribed votive a means of fulfilling a religious custom, it
also showed the patron’s skill and success.
Among these dedicators of first-fruits of manual labour could have been owners of
workshops, who hardly did any manual work themselves. However, some inscriptions defy
this explanation: Smikythe should more likely be pictured as an individual – if successful –
washerwoman than as the head of a laundry emporium. After all, she could not legally own
property in archaic and classical Athens. The lack of a father’s or husband’s name contradicts
the notion that the votive was set up by a male relative on her behalf, or paid for by him.
Thus, her considerable dedication on the city’s main sanctuary suggests that she made
enough to procure this sculpture by the work of her own hands.
On gravestones the number of inscriptions grew throughout the two centuries, and
contrary to votives they were usually cut into the gravestones themselves rather than their
bases. Almost all fifth-century gravestones are reliefs or stelai, allowing for an inscription on
the lower edge or below the tympanon. The reason for the shift in placement of funerary
inscriptions could be the result of new practices of setting up votives and gravestones. The
279
latter in particular tend to be placed more on peribolos walls in the course of the fifth
century, while cuttings in the ground could serve to stabilise votives in some sanctuaries. The
grand votives, gravestones and bases which had been the norm in the archaic period were in
early-classical times replaced by smaller memorials; a handful of exceptions aside,
monumentality of sculpture decreases in the fifth century.
The deity to whom most votives in Athens were offered was of course Athena: only
the final quarter of the fifth century brought serious competition with the arrival of Asklepios.
The votives of Athena often took the form of a tithe or first fruit, the occasions for which
varied greatly. Honorary monuments, especially in the fifth century, focussed on military and
athletic, but mostly on choregic victories. The practice of liturgy, which was formally instated
probably in the fifth century,1268 and the formalisation of competitive elements of festivals,
such as the Dionysia, Lenaia or Panathenaia, explains the appearance of these monuments –
although rather few are preserved considering the many victories that must have been
celebrated in the fifth century. However, even if contenders won and earned the right to set
up a monument, they apparently did not always do so. Some may not have been able to
afford it after the expense of the contest or of the liturgy they had just performed, and some
may not have wanted such a memorial.
In a sepulchral context not everyone was given a grave marker either, and some
gravestones in practice became focal points for several graves which were dug into existing
burial mounds, notably in the Kerameikos. In later times, periboloi served as more official and
clearly labelled family graves, although there, too, burials rarely stretch over more than a
generation or two and do not contain dozens of burials. Names were sometimes added to
gravestones along with later burials, proclaiming the continuing presence of the family in the
area. The otherwise landless metics seem to have had little trouble in finding plots for their
graves; their sepulchral monuments are definitely there, in the sixth century and even more
so in the later fifth.
One certain characteristic of Athenian sculpture patrons of the sixth and fifth
centuries is their ability to afford a sculpture. They need not have been aristocrats or
pentakosio-medimnoi, nor even citizens. Since men and women, citizens and non-citizens are
among the names of those who set up sculpture, all of them must have acquired the
1268
See, for example, Davies 1984, 97.
280
resources to make commissions. Their status in society is a more complex matter, since each
type of patron had its own limitations.
That the landed elite erected monuments is obvious: they could afford it and
occasions ranged from holding office or a priesthood to gaining victory in athletic games,
and from a successful generalship to fulfilling the liturgy of the choregia. Women, on the
other hand, are generally assumed to have been bound to comply with the wishes of their
legal guardians. Several votives offered by women in archaic and early classical Athens,
however, suggest otherwise. There is no sign of a man in the gifts of, for example, Heido,
Iphidike, Kleito or Euthylla. Metics and other non-citizens may have been excluded from such
things as owning land or holding office: but nothing indicates that they were blocked in any
way from erecting sculpture as votives or gravestones – rather the contrary. Even craftsmen,
considered lowly banausoi by some, confidently present the fruits of their labour to the gods
in the form of sculpted monuments, or (less often) commemorate their skill on funerary
monuments. Thus, as the material testifies, everyone in Athens could have their sculpture if
they could afford it.
281
V Epilogue
Who were the people who ‘made’ Athenian sculpture in the sixth and fifth centuries? Who
contributed what to this art world? This study set out to investigate the communication
between those who participated in the art world of Athens’ sculpture, and how their identities
and activities are reflected in the material record. After so many centuries it is surprising just
how close the evidence can bring us: to sculptors who signed their work and to patrons who
had messages inscribed to the gods or to their fellow-Athenians. But in addition to these
written testimonia, the production of sculpture has left physical remains: ruts and post holes
along lithagogia roads, hearths used for forging dowels, styli to work models, troughs for
making statue-paint, and the results of all these efforts, the monuments themselves.
Numbers of sculpture and bases in the sixth and fifth centuries show trends which at
first glance may seem to be caused by historical events, notably the destruction of the city by
the Persians in 479 BC. However, it was argued in chapter I that the sculpture from the
Akropolis may represent what was produced in the sixth century to a much higher degree
than is usually assumed. The simple reason for this is the fact that one cannot presuppose an
unproved disappearance of archaic votives. If this is accepted, the material reflects the actual
patterns of changing preferences, in which small treasuries dropped out of favour with
wealthy Athenians to make way for marble statues. In the fifth century, large quantities of
marble reliefs attest to the lasting popularity (and the greater uniformity) of sculpted votive
and grave monuments, despite a temporary and partial lapse after the Persian wars.
These patterns in the record offer an indication of developments in the art world of
Athenian sculpture. Over time, the participants of this art world, sculptors, quarrymen or
other support personnel, or patrons, changed some part of their contributions. For example,
in the course of the fifth century sculptors seem to have settled more in Athens. Fewer of
them came from the islands than in the early decades of marble sculpture in Greece. This is
connected to a growing distance between quarrymen and sculptors: where the early sculptors
had had strong ties with the islands, often their places of birth, in the fifth century quarrymen
and sculptors were more likely to be different men altogether. This applies not only to the
quarries on islands like Paros, but also to those in the Pentelic mountains. More elaborate
infrastructure and increasing specialisation among those who worked these quarries lies at
the root of this differentiation.
283
There is little evidence to suggest that such changes in work practice were in any way forced.
On the contrary, the reasons mostly seem either practical or personal. The shift from island
marble to Pentelic marble in Athenian sculpture might have been a matter of the patrons’
aesthetic preference or even one of their political loyalties. But it has turned out to be more
likely that the improvement of transport facilities from the Pentelic quarries to the city made
this marble available in large quantities and thus cheaper for the inhabitants of Athens. Not
only could marble easily be ordered from there, but pieces which were left over from building
projects were also eminently suited for the stelai and reliefs which were so common in the
later fifth century. Thus it was practicalities rather than high-minded political considerations
which determined to a large extent where and how the Athenians obtained the materials for
their votives and gravestones.
Evidence from workshops shows a similar pragmatism. The Street of the Marble
Workers and the Residential-Industrial district were in all likelihood set up to provide for the
construction programme on the Akropolis. It was argued in this study that in the fifth
century, various trades were practiced here which delivered supplies for the sculpture
workshops in the area, as well as the necessary craftsmen for specialised jobs. Each could
assist the others with his expertise, either in exchange for payment, or for free. This
interpretation of the evidence suggests that there was a considerable degree of vertical
specialisation in sculpture as early as the fifth century, as craftsmen from various trades
worked jointly on individual monuments.
Craftsmen often mentioned their profession with pride in the inscriptions on votives
and gravestones which they commissioned for themselves. Some of them were metics, some
citizens, but all must have been successful in their work to be able to afford such gifts or
memorials. The suggestion that they owned large workshops rather than working in them
may be true for some cases, but it certainly does not explain all of them. Especially women
who offered a percentage of what they had earned to the gods are unlikely to have been
wealthy proprietors. Athenian law was quite restrictive in this respect, although probably
more in the fifth century than earlier. Metics are another group of relatively low social status
in the inscriptions. Yet their ethnica are regularly mentioned, apparently without any selfconsciousness. It is remarkable that the inscriptions on the votive and sepulchral monuments
show little evident concern for the patron’s social status. In this sphere of life in ancient
Athens, it simply does not seem to be an issue whether one is a citizen or not.
Connected to this is the paucity of monuments which can be attributed with certainty
to the elite of, for example, the pentakosiomedimnoi or hippeis. Sculpted dedications or
284
gravestones of the aristocracy were not subjected to legal restrictions in the sixth and fifth
centuries: neither tyrants nor democrats seem to have intervened. In fact, the question is why
they would have wanted to limit sculptural display. The evidence does not suggest that the
Akropolis of the late sixth or the early fifth century was an arena for such use of sculpture by
the upper property classes of Athens. This elite had to share sanctuaries and burial grounds
with carpenters, fullers and washerwomen, whose dedications and sepulchral monuments
were sometimes large and impressive. In such an environment, it would be practically
impossible to bring aristocratic rivalry to the fore. If people from such varying groups in
society participate in a phenomenon, it can hardly be a vehicle for exclusive display of power.
On the other hand, a secretary of a cult would certainly have belonged to the landed elite of
Athens; and his basin is rather modest. This apparent indifference with regard to social
competition in the private sculpture of Athens would explain why it was unproblematic to
carve one’s (foreign) ethnic in a dedication or grave monument. Sculpture was simply not the
place where such things mattered.
On top of this, the inhabitants of Athens had other things on their minds in the latearchaic period. It was the time of the democratic reforms by Kleisthenes, followed soon after
by the first rumblings of the Persian wars. A new sense of unity among the Athenians is
conveyed by the choregic monuments, beginning in the second quarter of the fifth century:
despite the supposed rivalry between tribes in dramatic contests, a few winners with multitribe choruses emphasised their combined effort in the votive inscriptions on their sculpted
memorials. These, at least, are clearly directed at the Athenian public, at those who attended
the occasion and remembered the victory, even if the formula involves a deity.
Dedications were first and foremost a means of communication with the gods, and
perhaps this was one reason why social aspects were of lesser importance. Yet votives, like
gravestones, were also visible to one’s fellow Athenians. That this mattered is implied by
repairs or additions to certain monuments. Some votives address both deities and the
patron’s contemporaries. The two questions of who was the more important party (living
mortals or the divine ones) and how precisely this combined form of address worked, are
beyond the scope of this study. The connection between patrons and their public is an
interesting topic for future research, especially in light of public and private rituals practiced
in Athens. An expansion of the material evidence would offer possibilities for such a study.
Comparing the urban Athenian evidence with that of the Attic countryside would shed some
light on the behaviour of the participants of this art world. It would be interesting to see
whether in rural Attika, patrons and sculptors made different choices than in the city.
285
The Athenians certainly had their preferences for sculptural genres in different periods of the
sixth and fifth centuries, but there is no evidence that these preferences expressed the
patrons’ social status or their membership of elite groups such as property classes. Individual
cases show individual motives for dedicating marble or bronze sculpture, and the record
offers no quantifiable group trends in this respect. The Athenian upper classes did not
choose specific types of sculpture to reflect their elite status, and there were no exclusive
genres which were looked upon as conveying this message particularly well.
What defined the social interaction in the sculpture world, then, was not so much
political status, tyranny or the rules of citizenship, nor even democracy. Evidently, sculpture
was not nearly as much of an arena for confrontation in this sphere as might be expected.
Instead, the choices which patrons made, like those of the sculptors and other craftsmen,
were highly individual. The fact that no laws specifically limit the expenditure on gravestones
in the sixth or fifth centuries supports the lack of importance of sculpture as a vehicle for
political status. Not even Plato is explicitly negative about sculpture, sepulchral or votive,
despite his generally low opinion of crafts and craftsmen.
The transactions of the art world of Athenian sculpture were no more, nor less, than
the personal communication of many individuals through the sculptural monuments of each
patron’s choice with deities or with the dead; and with the passing public, which echoed the
acts of dedication or commemoration by looking at the statue or by reading the inscription.
Most importantly, they are the outcome of the patrons’ discourse with the craftsmen from
whom they ordered their monuments. These were small encounters, based on private
preferences, and only to a very limited extent prescribed by external circumstances, such as
legislation or social pressure. And if the choice was the patron’s, the main restrictions left
were the amount they were able and willing to pay, and the availability of craftsmen and
materials. Thus, the most clearly discernible group in the sculptural art world of sixth and
fifth-century Athens is that of the sculptors. The votives and gravestones which they made
bear witness to their status and to their work.
286
287
S UMMARY
The sixth and the fifth centuries are in the sculpture of Athens a time of remarkable change.
The marble dedications and gravestones which the inhabitants of the city had made show an
extraordinary development, both in appearance and in genres. This study has investigated
how and by whom these sculptures were made, and how all those who contributed in some
way to the process of sculpture manufacture communicated.
The idea that sculptors are not alone among the makers of sculpture in a wider sense
is derived from Howard Becker’s theory of art worlds. Besides sculptors and those who
ordered statues and stelai, the support personnel constitute an important group. Support
personnel is a very wide term, in the sense that it encompasses anyone who in some form or
manner contributed something to the final appearance of the sculpture.
Social rank in archaic and classical Athens was based on property, notably of land.
The property classes were introduced by Solon in the early sixth century and were probably
adapted to the rising democracy in the centuries after. In the social upheaval which occurred
at several moments in this period, establishing one’s social status – whether this was in
politics, in citizenship or in wealth - was of great importance. The large dedications and
gravestones set up in the public places which sanctuaries and cemeteries were, would
seemingly offer a perfect platform for a patron to display his wealth and power. Nonetheless,
this is an assumption which should be investigated. The idea that sculpture was used for
conspicuous consumption in ancient Athens might be anachronistic; it requires to be
supported by evidence.
In order to be able to answer this question, all published marble votives and
gravestones found within the city boundaries of ancient Athens, including the area
immediately around the city walls where the main cemeteries were, have been collected.
Bases, pillars, columns and other supports of which it is clear what type of statue or stele
they originally carried have also been recorded. Subsequently, their numbers have been
analysed. In chapter one, the outcome of this investigation was that the material from the
Akropolis, for a large part the so-called Persian debris, must be a much closer reflection of
what was set up in the sanctuaries on the site than is commonly assumed. For the fifth
century, the interpretation of the evidence is more complex, since this is not a closed
assemblage. The sepulchral material from the Kerameikos falls somewhere in between, since
289
much of the archaic sepulchral sculpture, but certainly not all, was built into the
Themistoklean Wall just after the Persian wars.
In chapter II, the provenance of the material of the statues and stelai was analysed. In
the archaic period, a large majority of votive statues was made in Cycladic marble, especially
Parian and Naxian. For the bases of these sculptures, however, already in the sixth century
marble from Attica, Hymettian or Pentelic, was used. Apparently, the quality of especially
Pentelic was known in this period, but island marble was preferred. In the fifth century, by far
the most commonly used marble in Athenian sculpture is Pentelic. This seems to be a
consequence of the great improvement of infrastructure for the transportation of marble in
the mid-fifth century, when large amounts of marble had to be brought to Athens for
construction. As a result, the largest cost of marble, that of its transportation, could be
reduced, and the commercial value and uses of marble went up.
Once the marble was brought to Athens, sculptors and their associates could begin.
In chapter III, it was argued that sculpture in ancient Athens knew a relatively high degree of
vertical specialisation. This means that not only sculptors, but other specialised craftsmen as
well worked on a single statue. The workshops in the Residential-Industrial district, southwest of the Agora not only show traces of marble-working, but also smithies, a possible
installation to produce pigments, and a workshop for bone tools and glass. All these
activities could contribute to the manufacture of sculpture.
Besides this support personnel and the sculptors themselves, patrons are another
important group in the art world of Athenian sculpture. These turned out to be less
consistent in their commissions than is often thought. In other words, sculptural group
behaviour based on social rank or even on citizen status cannot be traced in the
archaeological nor in the epigraphic material of this study. The landed nobility of Athens, for
example, did order sculpture to dedicate to the gods or commemorate a deceased relative;
but the choice of a genre or of the type of marble seems of lesser importance. Equestrian
statues, often considered the epitome of aristocratic expression in ancient Athens, cannot
exclusively be attributed to aristocratic patrons. On the contrary, inhabitants of Athens
without citizen status also set up monumental votives and gravestones, of the same materials
and of the same types. One of the oldest large marble votives with an inscription was
dedicated by a carpenter or builder. Votive and sepulchral sculpture was not an exclusive
affair: it was personal.
Similarly, the communication between the participants of the art world of Athenian
sculpture was one of individuals with each other. The intensity of maintenance of sculpture
290
once it had been erected varies as well. There are hardly any indications that it mattered what
other residents of Athens thought about one’s votive or gravestone. Even Plato, an adamant
criticist of many crafts, keeps a much more neutral tone where sculpture is concerned.
Statues and sculptors appear in his works, but mostly as examples rather than the targets of
philosophical invective.
It may seem ironic to finish a dissertation about the social context of the
manufacture of sculpture with the conclusion that in the social and political hierarchy of
Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries, sculpture cannot really be considered a vehicle for
status. Yet this is the outcome of this investigation. Sculpted votives and gravestones were
first and foremost personal objects; the patrons’ preferences in the material show that they
can and often do express very private choices. That despite this, trends appear, for example
in genres, indicates that fashion (a public phenomenon) certainly played a part in this art
world; but then again, so did prices, or the availability of materials. Regardless, the
interaction between sculptors and other craftsmen, between patrons and sculptors, and
between these groups among the public of ancient Athens have produced a sculptural
summit which reverberates to the present day.
291
N EDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING
De zesde en vijfde eeuw voor Christus waren voor de ontwikkeling van de beeldhouwkunst in
Athene een keerpunt. De marmeren wijgeschenken en grafbeelden die de inwoners van de
stad lieten vervaardigen veranderden in vele opzichten in deze periode. In dit proefschrift is
onderzocht hoe de communicatie tussen al diegenen die meewerkten aan de vervaardiging
van sculptuur in Athene verliep, en hoe ze zich ontwikkelde in de loop van de zesde en vijfde
eeuw voor Christus. De notie dat beeldhouwers en opdrachtgevers niet de enigen waren die
bij dit proces betrokken waren is ontleend aan Howard Becker’s theorie van de art world.
Voor de sculptuur in de onderzoeksperiode is naast de beeldhouwer en de opdrachtgever
vooral het support personnel van belang. Deze groep omvat iedereen die op wat voor wijze
dan ook een bijdrage levert aan de productie van kunst, in dit geval sculptuur.
Archaïsch en klassiek Athene kende een klassenindeling gebaseerd op landbezit.
Deze indeling was ingevoerd door Solon in de vroege zesde eeuw voor Christus, en werd later
in verschillende fasen aangepast aan de opkomende demokratie. In de sociale strubbelingen
die in deze periode plaatsvonden, was het etaleren van rijkdom en macht een middel ter
verwerving van een positie in de maatschappij. De beelden die in de heiligdommen en
begraafplaatsen van Athene werden opgesteld zijn ogenschijnlijk een uitstekend middel om
aan deze conspicuous consumption deel te nemen. Maar het staat nog te bezien of de votiefen grafbeelden hier ook daadwerkelijk voor werden gebruikt.
Om de bovengenoemde vragen te kunnen beantwoorden, moest eerst het materiaal
onderzocht worden: alle marmeren votieven en grafstenen met een Atheense vindplaats, en
alle voetstukken waaraan te zien is of er een marmeren of bronzen beeld op gestaan heeft
werden verzameld en opgeteld per kwart eeuw. In hoofdstuk I is dit materiaal onderzocht op
representativiteit, met andere woorden de vraag in hoeverre het materiaal dat is gevonden
weergeeft wat er ooit geproduceerd is. Dit resulteerde in de conclusie dat het zogenaamde
Perzenpuin waarschijnlijk grotendeels representatief moet zijn, aangezien er het zeer
onwaarschijnlijk is dat er een aanzienlijke hoeveelheid beelden van de Akropolis verwijderd
zou zijn na de Perzische oorlogen. Voor materiaal uit de vijfde eeuw ligt de bewijslast
gecompliceerder, omdat daar geen sprake is van een gesloten assemblage. Dit geldt in iets
mindere mate ook voor het archaïsche grafmateriaal uit de Kerameikos, dat slechts
gedeeltelijk is ingebouwd in de Themistokleïsche stadsmuur.
293
Het corpus van beelden en reliëfs dat op validiteit onderzocht was, bleek in hoofdstuk II op te
splitsen in twee hoofdcategorieën van marmer. In de zesde eeuw werd voor een zeer groot
deel van de wijgeschenken marmer van de Cycladen gebruikt, in het bijzonder van Paros en
Naxos. Het is opvallend dat voor de voetstukken van deze beelden vaak Attisch marmer werd
gebruikt, namelijk Hymettisch of Pentelisch. De kwaliteiten van dit marmer waren dus al
bekend, en het lijkt verwonderlijk dat men pas in de vijfde eeuw geheel overstapte op
Pentelisch marmer. Dit bleek samen te hangen met de grootschalige aanlevering van dit
marmer in het midden van de vijfde eeuw voor de bouwprojecten op de Akropolis. De
infrastructuur voor het vervoer van het marmer werd enorm verbeterd, wat leidde tot een
grote reductie in het duurste gedeelte van de prijs voor marmer: transport. Dit had grote
gevolgen voor de commerciële waarde van marmer, en belangrijker, voor de steenhouwers
die in de groeven werkten en hun relatie met de beeldhouwers.
Was het marmer eenmaal in Athene, dan konden beeldhouwers en hun medewerkers
aan de slag. In hoofdstuk III werd gesteld dat de Atheense beeldhouwkunst een aanzienlijke
mate van verticale specialisatie kende. Dat wil zeggen dat niet alleen beeldhouwers, maar ook
andere ambachten meewerkten aan de voltooiing van beelden. De werkplaatsen in het
Residential-Industrial district ten zuidwesten van de Agora bevatten sporen van
steenhouwerij, maar ook enkele smidsen, installaties om verf en glas te produceren en resten
van botbewerking: alle ambachten die bij kunnen dragen aan de vervaardiging van sculptuur.
Behalve kunstenaars (beeldhouwers) en support personnel (de eerder genoemde
ambachtslieden) zijn in de art world ook de opdrachtgevers en het publiek van belang.
Atheense opdrachtgevers bleken minder consequent in hun commissies dan gewoonlijk
verondersteld wordt. Groepsgedrag op basis van sociale rang is niet traceerbaar in het
archeologische of epigrafische materiaal. Met andere woorden, de elite van Athene bestelde
sculptuur om als votief of als grafmonument te dienen, maar de voorkeur voor een bepaalde
marmersoort of voor een genre was een individuele zaak. Er is geen enkel bewijs voor een
specifiek verband tussen de elite en bijvoorbeeld ruiterstandbeelden, terwijl paardenraces die
connotaties wel aantoonbaar hebben. In tegendeel, bewoners van Athene die niet eens
burgerrecht hadden lieten ook monumentale, met de adel geassocieerde beelden maken. Een
van de oudste stenen votieven met een inscriptie is gewijd door een timmerman of aannemer.
Sculptuur was zeker geen exclusieve of elitaire aangelegenheid.
De communicatie tussen hen die tot de art world van Atheense sculptuur behoorden
was dan ook vooral een persoonlijk gegeven. Opdrachtgevers varieerden van zeer
welgestelde adel tot vrijgelaten slaven. De intensiteit van het onderhoud van de sculptuur na
294
plaatsing lijkt ook uiteen te lopen. Aanwijzingen dat men zich druk maakte over wat andere
Atheners, het publiek, van het beeld dachten zijn er nauwelijks. Zelfs Plato, die zich toch met
verve tegen verschillende ambachten keert, lijkt zich weinig aan de beeldhouwkunst gelegen
te laten liggen. Voorbeelden uit de sculptuur komen af en toe voor in zijn werk, maar van
ernstige, specifieke kritiek is geen sprake.
Het is misschien paradoxaal om een proefschrift over de sociale rol van (de productie
van) beeldhouwkunst af te sluiten met de conclusie dat die beeldhouwkunst niet werkelijk als
vehikel voor sociale status diende in de sociale en politieke hiërarchie van de Atheense
maatschappij. Toch is dat de uitkomst van dit onderzoek. Dat zich desondanks trends
voordoen, bijvoorbeeld in genres, wijst erop dat mode (een publiek fenomeen) een grote rol
speelde in de keuzes van de opdrachtgevers; maar de kosten, of de beschikbaarheid van
materiaal, waren evenzeer belangrijk. De interactie tussen beeldhouwers en andere
ambachtslieden, tussen de opdrachtgevers en het publiek was er niet minder om.
295
296
B IBLIOGRAPHY
Abraldes, A. M. (1998) Pentethlen: The Export of Pentelic Marble and Its Use in Architectural
and Epigraphical Monuments, Ann Arbor MI [diss. reprint]
Adam, S. (1966) The Technique of Greek Sculpture in the Archaic and Classical Periods,
London
Adrados, F. R. (1996) La démocratie Athénienne et les genres littéraires, in Sakellariou 1996,
17-33
Aleshire, S. B. (1989) The Athenian Asklepieion: The People, their Dedications and the
Inventories, Amsterdam
— (1992) The Economics of Dedication at the Athenian Asklepieion, in Linders and Alroth
1992, 85-99
— (1994) The Demos and the priests: The Selection of Sacred Officials at Athens from
Cleisthenes
to Augustus, in Osborne and Hornblower 1994, 325-37
— (1994) Towards a Definition of “State Cult” for Ancient Athens, in Hägg 1994, 9-16
Alexandri, O. (1971) Prw/i+moj arxai+kh\ kefalh\ kou/rou e)c Aqhnw/n, AAA 4, 137-9
— (1972) ’Eforei/a Klassikw=n ’Arxaioth/twn ’Aqhnh/twn ’Anaskafai\ ’Etouj 1970, ADelt
27.II1 (Chron.) 22-146
Alford, H. L. (1980) The Seated Figure in Archaic Greek Sculpture, Ann Arbor MI
Almeida, J. A. (2003) Justice as an Aspect of the Polis Idea in Solon’s Political Poems: A
Reading of the Fragments in Light of the Researches of New Classical Archaeology,
Leiden
Alroth, B. (1987) Visiting gods. Who and Why, in Linders and Nordquist 1987, 9-19
Ammerman, A. J. (1996) Eridanos Valley and the Athenian Agora, AJA 100, 699-715
Ampolo, C. (1982) Le cave di pietra dell’ Attica. Problemi giuridici ed economici, Opus 1,
251-6
Anderson, G. (2005) Before Turannoi Were Tyrants: Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek
History, ClAnt 24, 173-222
Angiolillo, S. (1997) Arte e cultura nell’ Atene di Pisistrato e dei Pisistratidi: o epi/ Κro/nou
bi/oj, Bari
Applebaum, H. A. (1992) The Concept of Work: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, Albany NY
Archaeological Institute of America (1980) Eighty-First General Meeting of the Archaeological
Institute of America, AJA 84, 190-242
Arnush, M. F. (1995) The Career of Peisistratos Son of Hippias, Hesperia 64, 135-62
297
Asgari, N. (1988) The Stages of Workmanship of the Corinthian Capital in Proconnesus and
Its Export Form, in Herz and Waelkens 1988, 115-25
Ashmole, B. (1928) An Attic Relief of the Late Fifth Century, in W. Amelung ed., Antike
Plastik. Walther Amelung zum 60. Geburtstag, Berlin 1928, 13-5
— (1972) Architect and Sculptor in Classical Greece, London
Austin, M. M. and P. Vidal-Naquet (1972) Économies et sociétés en Grèce ancienne (périodes
archaïque et classique), Paris
Austin, R. P. (1973) The Stoichedon Style in Greek Inscriptions, London/Oxford
Baba, K. (1984) On Kerameikos Inv. I 388 (SEG XXII, 79): A Note on the Formation of the
Athenian Metic-Status, BSA 79, 1-5
Bakewell, G. W. (1997) Metoiki/a in the “Supplices” of Aeschylus, CQ 16, 208-28
Balakakis, G. (1952)
)Ellhnika\ a)mfi/glufa, Gnomon 24, 366-8
Barringer, J. M. and J. M. Hurwit eds. (2005) Periklean Athens and Its Legacy: Problems and
Perspectives. In Honor of J. J. Pollitt, Austin TX
Baumer, L. E. (2000) Artisanat et cahiers de modèle dans la sculpture grecque classique. Le
cas des reliefs votifs, in Blondé and Muller 2000, 41-61
Beazley, J. D. (1940) A Marble Lamp, JHS 60, 22-49
— (1944) Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens, London
— (1963, 2nd ed.) Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, Oxford
— (1971, 2nd ed.) Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters and to Attic
Red-Figure Vase-Painters, Oxford
— (1978) Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters, New York
Beazley, J. D. and B. Ashmole (1966) Greek Sculpture and Painting to the End of the
Hellenistic Period, Cambridge
Bechtel, F. (1902) Die attischen Frauennamen nach ihrem Systeme dargestellt, Göttingen
— (1964) Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, Hildesheim
Beckel, G. (1968) Das Würzburger Doppelrelief, AM 83, 235-41
Becker, H. S. (1984) Art Worlds, Berkeley CA
— (2008) Art Worlds: 25th Anniversary Edition, Updated and Expanded, Berkeley CA
Beers, S. de (2007) Poetry and Patronage. Literary Strategies in the Poems of Giannantonio
Campano, [diss.] Amsterdam
Bergemann, J. (1997) Demos und Thanatos. Untersuchungen zum Wertsystem der Polis im
Spiegel der attischen Grabreliefs des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. und zur Funktion der
gleichzeitigen Grabbauten, Munich
Bernhardt, R. (2003) Luxuskritik und Aufwandsbeschränkungen in der griechischen Welt,
Wiesbaden
298
Beschi (1969-70) Rilievi votivi attici riomposti / Il rilievo della Trireme Paralos, AsAtene 478, 85-132
Bettinetti, S. (2001) La statua di culto nella pratica rituale greca, Bari
Blamire, A. (2001) Athenian Finance, 454-404 BC, Hesperia 70, 99-126
Blok, J. H. (2000) Phye’s Procession: Culture, Politics and Peisistratid Rule, in SancisiWeerdenburg 2000, 17-48
— (2006) Solon’s Funerary Laws: Questions of Authenticity and Function, in Blok and
Lardinois 2006, 197-247
— (2007) Fremde, Bürger und Baupolitik im klassischen Athen', HistAnthr 15, 309-26
— (2009) Perikles’ Citizenship Law: A New Perspective’, Historia 58, 141-70
— (2009)1 Sacrifice and Processions on Attic Black- and Red-Figure Pottery: Reflections on
the Distinction between ‘Public’ and ‘Private’, in Moormann and Stissi 2009, 127-35
— (forthcoming) Citizenship in Action: “Reading” Sacrifice in Classical Athens, in C. Mann
and R. von den Hoff eds., Rollenbilder und Medialität im demokratischen Athen
[forthcoming proceedings of the conference Rollenbilder im sozialen und politischen
System: Medien, Gruppen, Räume im demokratischen Athen, University of Freiburg, 2425 November 2006]
Blok, J. H. and A. P. M. H. Lardinois eds. (2006) Solon of Athens: New Historical and
Philological Approaches, Leiden
Blondé, F. and A. Muller eds. (2000) L’artisanat en Grèce ancienne. Les productions, les
diffusions, Lille
Blümel, C. (1927) Griechische Bildhauerarbeit, JdI Ergh. 11
— (1941) Griechische Bildhauer an der Arbeit, Berlin
Boardman, J. (1973, 2nd ed.) Greek Art, London
— (1975) Herakles, Peisistratos and Eleusis, JHS 95, 1-12
— (1955) Painted Funerary Plaques and Some Remarks on Prothesis, BSA 50, 51-66
— (1978) Greek sculpture: The Archaic period, London
— (1985) Greek sculpture: The Classical period, London
— (1989) Herakles, Peisistratos and the Unconvinced, JHS 109, 158-9
Boardman, J. and D. Kurtz (1971) Greek Burial Customs, Ithaca NY
Boedeker, D and K. A. Raaflaub eds. (1998) Democracy, Empire, and the Arts In Fifth-Century
Athens, Cambridge MA
Boersma, J. S. (1970) Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B.C., Groningen
— (2000) Peisistratos’ Building Activity Reconsidered, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg 2000,
49-56
Bol, P. (2002) Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst, Mainz
299
Bol, R. (1998) Amazones volneratae: Untersuchungen zu den Ephesischen Amazonenstatuen,
Mainz
Borgers, O. (2008) Religious Citizenship in Classical Athens. Men and Women in Religious
Representations on Athenian Vase-Painting, BABesch 83, 73-97
Börner, F. (1996) Die bauliche Entwicklung Athens als Handelsplatz in archaischer und
klassischer Zeit, Munich
Bowman, A. and G. Woolf eds. (1994) Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, Cambridge
Bradeen, D. W. (1974) The Athenian Agora XVII. Inscriptions: The Funerary Monuments,
Princeton NJ
De Brebisson, G. (1986) Le mécénat, Paris
Brecoulaki, H., and V. Perdikatsis (2000) Ancient Wall-Painting on Macedonian Chamber
Tombs and Cist Graves, IV-III Century B.C.: A Comparative Study on the Use of Color, in
Color in Ancient Greece, International Conference, Proceedings of the Conference Held in
Thessaloniki, 12th-16th April 2000, Thessaloniki, 147-54
Brinkmann, V. (2005) Kleuren en schildertechniek, in Brinkmann and Brijder 2005, 19-23
— (2007) The Austere Coloration of the Parthenon Sculptures, in V. Brinkmann and R.
Wünsche eds., Gods in Color: Painted Sculpture of Classical Antiquity. Exhibition at the
Arthur M. Sackler Museum, September 22, 2007 - January 20, 2008, Munich, 107-11
Brinkmann, V. and U. Koch-Brinkmann (2003) Der prächtige Prinz, Munich
Brinkmann, V., R. Wünsche and U. Wurnig eds. (2004) Bunte Götter: die Farbigkeit antiker
Skulptur, Munich
Broneer, O. (1935) Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis in Athens 1933-1934,
Hesperia, 109-35
— (1938) Discoveries on the North Slope of the Acropolis, AJA 42, 445-50
Brouskari, M. S. (1974) The Acropolis Museum: A Descriptive Catalogue, Athens
— (2002) Oi anaskafe/j noti/wj thj Akropo/lewj. Ta glupta/, AE 141, 1-204
Brückner, A. (1909) Der Friedhof am Eridanos bei der Hagia Triada zu Athen, Berlin
Brückner, A. and E. Pernice (1893) Ein Attischer Friedhof, AM 18, 6-191
Brunn, H. v, F. Bruckmann, P. Arndt and G. Lippold (1888) Denkmäler griechischer und
römischer Skulptur, Munich
Brunnsåker, S. (1971, 2nd ed.) The Tyrant-Slayers of Kritios and Nesiotes: A Critical Study of
the Sources and Restorations, Stockholm
Bumke, H. (2004) Statuarische Gruppen in der frühen griechischen Kunst, Berlin
Bundgaard, J. A. (1974) The Excavation of the Athenian Acropolis 1882-1890: The Original
Drawings, Copenhagen
— (1976) Parthenon and the Mycenaean City on the Heights, Copenhagen
300
Burford, A. (1960) Heavy Transport in Classical Antiquity, EHR 13, 1-18
— (1962) Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society, Ithaca NY
— (1963) The Builders of the Parthenon, in Hooker 1963, 23-35
— (1965) The Economics of Greek Temple Building, PCPhS 191, 25-31
— (1969) The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros, Liverpool
Burkert, W. (1970) Buzyge und Palladion: Gewalt und Gericht in altgriechischem Ritual, ZRGG
22, 356-68
— (1985) Greek religion, Oxford
Burkert, W. (1987) Offerings in Perspective: Surrender, Distribution, Exchange, in Linders and
Nordquist 1987, 43-9
— (1988) The Meaning of the Temple in Classical Greece, in M. V. Fox ed., Temple and
Society: Proceedings of the Burdick-Vary Symposium at the University of Wisconsin,
Madison 1986, Winona Lake WI, 27-47
— (1996) Isonomia und Polisreligion im kleisthenischen Athen, in Sakellariou 1996, 51-65
Buschor, E. (1927) Ein Kopf von Dipylon, AM 52, 205-12
— (1950) Frühgriechische Jünglinge, Munich
Buxton, R. G. A. (1994) Imaginary Greece: The Contexts of Mythology, Cambridge
Caley, E. R. (1945) Ancient Greek Pigments from the Agora, Hesperia 14, 152-6
Camp, J. (1986) The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens, London
— (1995) Athens and Attica: The Town and Its Countryside, in Verbanck-Pierard and
Viviers 1995, 225-41
— (2000) Walls and the Polis, in Flensted-Jensen, Nielsen and Rubinstein 2000, 41-57
— (2001) The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven CT
— (2003) Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1998 - 2001, Hesperia 72, 241-80
— (2005) The Origins of the Classical Agora, in Greco 2005, 197-209
— (2007) Excavations in the Athenian Agora, 2002 – 2007, Hesperia 76, 627-63
Cannon, A. (1989) The Historical Dimension in Mortuary Expressions of Status and
Sentiment, Current Anthropology 30, 437-57
Carpenter, R. (1968) The Unfinished Colossus on Mt. Pendeli, AJA 72, 279-80
Carpenter, T. H. (1989) Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV 2 and
Paralipomena, Oxford
Carter, J. B. (1988) Isotopic Analysis of Seventh-Century BC Perirrhanteria, in Herz and
Waelkens 1988, 419-31
Cartledge, P., E. E. Cohen and L. Foxhall eds. (2002) Money, Labour, and Land: Approaches
to the Economies of Ancient Greece, London
301
Cartledge, P., P. Millett and S. von Reden eds. (1998) Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict and
Community in Classical Athens, Cambridge
Casson, S. (1921) Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum Vol. II. Sculpture and Architectural
Fragments, Cambridge
— (1933) The Technique of Early Greek Sculpture, Oxford
Catling, H. (1979-80) Archaeology in Greece, ARepLondon 26, 3-53
Cawkwell, G. L. (1995) Early Greek Tyranny and the People, CQ 45, 73-86
Chambers, M. (1967) The Significance of the Themistocles Decree, Philologus 3, 166-69
Chamoux, F. (1996) Bases religieuses de l’État Athénien, in Sakellariou 1996, 67-77
— (1947-48) Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1946,
BCH 71-2, 382-422
Charbonneaux, J. (1950) La sculpture greque, Paris
Charitonidis, S. I. (1958) Anaskafh/ klassikw/n ta/fwn para/ thn platei/an Sunta/gmatoj, AE
1958, 1-152
— (1973) Eurh/mata prwtogewmetrikh/j kai gewmetrikh/j epoxh/j thj anaskafh/j noti/wj
thj Akropo/lewj, ADelt 28.I, 1-63
Chatzedemetriou, A. (2005) Parasta/seij ergasthri/wn kai empori/ou sthn eikonografi/a twn
arxai+kw/n kai klasikw/n xro/nwn, Athens
Clairmont, C. W. (1970) Gravestone and Epigram. Greek Memorials from the Archaic and
Classical Period, Mainz
— (1979) “It should belong to the Fifth Century”. The Case of the Slanting “Nu”, Boreas 2,
43-52
— (1983) Patrios nomos: Public Burial in Athens during the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC:
The Archaeological, Epigraphic-Literary and Historical Evidence, Oxford
— (1993-95) Classical Attic Tombstones, Kilchberg
Clinton, K. (1994) The Epidauria and the Arrival of Asclepius in Athens, in Hägg 1994, 17-34
Comella, A. (2002) I rilievi votivi greci di periodo arcaico e classico: diffusione, ideologia,
committenza, Bari
Comstock, M. B. and C. Vermeule (1971) Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes in the Museum
of Fine Arts Boston, Boston CT
— (1976) Sculpture in Stone: The Greek Roman and Etruscan Collections of the Museum of
Fine Arts Boston, Boston CT
— (1988) Sculpture in Stone and Bronze: Additions to the Collections of Greek Etruscan
and Roman Art 1971 – 1988 in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Boston CT
Connelly, J. B. (1996) Parthenon and Parthenoi: A Mythological Interpretation of the
Parthenon Frieze, AJA 100, 53-80
Connor, W. (1987) Tribes, Festivals and Processions; Civic Ceremonial and Political
302
Manipulation in Archaic Greece, JHS 107, 40-50
Conze, A. C. L. (1893) Die attischen Grabreliefs, Berlin
Cook, J. M. (1997) Greek Painted Pottery, London
Cook, R. M. (1987) Pots and Pisistratan Propaganda, JHS 107, 167-9
Corso, A. (2004) The Art of Praxiteles: The Development of Praxiteles’ Workshop and its
Cultural Tradition until the Sculptor’s Acme (364-1 BC), Rome
Coulton, J. J. (1974) Lifting in Early Greek Architecture, JHS 94, 1-19
— (1977) Ancient Greek architects at work: problems of structure and design, Ithaca NY
Courbin, P. (1954) Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1953,
BCH 78, 101-9
Cox, C. A. (1989) Incest, Inheritance and the Political Forum in Fifth-Century Athens, ClJ 85,
34-46
Crescenzo, R. (2006) La traduction du vocabulaire de la couleur à la Renaissance: l’exemple
des Images de Philostrate traduite par Blaise, in Rouveret, Dubel and Naas 2006, 55-76
Cromey, R. D. (2006) Apollo Patroos and the Phratries, AntCl, 41-69
Csapo, E. and W. J. Slater (1995) The Context of Ancient Drama, Ann Arbor MI
Curtius, E. (1862-1865) Attische Studien I: Pnyx und Stadtmauer. II: Der Kerameikos und die
Geschichte der Agora von Athen, Göttingen
Dasen, V. and M. Piérart eds. (2005) )Idi/# kai\ dhmosi/#. Les cadres “privés” et “publics” de la
religion grecque antique (Kernos suppl. 15), Liège
Daux, G. (1959) Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1958,
BCH 38, 572-3
— (1962) Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1961, BCH
86, 652-3
— (1972) Stèles funéraries et épigrammes, BCH 96, 503-66
Davies, J. K. (1967) Demosthenes on Liturgies: A Note, JHS 87, 33-40
— (1971) Athenian Propertied Families, 600-300 BC, Oxford
— (1981) Wealth and the power of wealth in classical Athens, New York
— (1984, 2nd ed.) Democracy and Classical Greece, London
— (1998) Ancient Economies. Models and Muddles, in Parkins and Smith 1998, 225-56
Davies, J. K. (2004) Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Group and the Alternatives, in Rhodes
2004 [repr. 1979], 18-39
Dehl, C. (1981) Eine Gruppe früher Lutrophorenstelen aus dem Kerameikos, AM 96, 163-78
Descamps-Lequime, S. (2006) La polychromie des bronzes grecs et romains, in Rouveret,
Dubel and Naas 2006, 79-92
Despinis, G. I. (1971) Sumbolh/ sth mele/th tou e/rgou tou Agorakri/tou, Athens
303
Despinis, G. I. (2008) Klassische Skulpturen von der Athener Akropolis, AM 123, 235-340
Deutsches archäologisches Institut (2001) Akten des Intern. Symposions Die Ausgrabungen
im Kerameikos, Bilanz und Perspektiven: Athen, 27. bis 31. Januar 1999, AM 114
Deyhle, W. (1969) Meisterfragen der archaischen Plastik Attikas, AM 84, 1-64
Dickins, G. (1912) Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum Vol. I: Archaic Sculpture, Cambridge
Diepolder, H. (1931) Die attischen Grabreliefs des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts, Berlin
Dörig, J. (1977) Onatas of Aegina, Leiden
Dohan Morrow, K. (1985) Greek Footwear and the Dating of Sculpture, Madison WI
Dohrn, T. (1957) Attische Plastik vom Tode des Phidias bis zum Wirken der grossen Meister
des IV. Jhs. v. Chr., Krefeld
Donderer, M. (1996) Bildhauersignaturen auf griechischer Rundplastik, ÖJh 65, 87-104
— (2004) Antike Bildhauersignaturen - wo man sie nicht erwarten würde, ÖJh 75, 81-96
— (2007) Die Signatur des Pheidias am Zeus von Olympia, AntK 50, 24-35
Donnay, G. (1967) Les comptes de l’Athéna chryséléphantine du Parthénon, BCH 91, 50-86
Dontas, G. (1969) Arxaio/thtej kai mnhmei/a Aqhnw/n: 2. ec Akropole/wj, ADelt 24.II1 (Chron.),
19-23
— (1983) The True Aglaurion, Hesperia 52, 48-63
Ducat, J. (1964) Périrrhanthèria, BCH 88, 577-606
Duhn, F. K. v. (1877) Votivreliefs an Asklepios und Hygieia, Arch. Zeit. II, 214-22
Duthoy, F. (2000) Die unvollendeten Marmorskulpturen des Kerameikos, AM 115, 115-46
Eaverly, M. A. (1995) Archaic Greek Equestrian Sculpture, Ann Arbor MI
Eckstein, F. (1969) Anaqh/mata: Studien zu d. Weihgeschenken strengen Stils im Heiligtum
von Olympia, Berlin
Eddy, S. K. (1973) The Cold War between Athens and Persia, ca. 448-412 B.C, ClPhil 68,
241-58
Edelmann, M. (1999) Menschen auf griechischen Weihreliefs, Munich
Edgar, C. E. (1897) Two Stelai from Kynosarges, JHS 17, 174-5
Elias, N. (1939) Über den Prozess der Zivilisation; soziogenetische und psychogenetische
Untersuchungen, Basel
Enenkel, K. A. E. and I. L. Pfeijffer eds. (2005) The Manipulative Mode. Political Propaganda in
Antiquity: A Collection of Case Studies, Leiden
Engen, D. T. (1996) Athenian Trade Policy, 415-307 BC: Honors and Privileges for TradeRelated Services, Ann Arbor MI
Ervin, M. (1958) The Sanctuary of Aglauros on the South Slope of the Akropolis and Its
Destruction in the First Mithridatic War (Evidence from Archaeological and Literary
Sources), Archeion Pontou 22, 129-66
304
Fant, J. C. ed. (1988) Ancient Marble Quarrying and Trade, Oxford
Fehr, B. (1996) Kouroi e korai. Formule e tipi dell’arte arcaica come espressione di valori, in
Settis and Catoni 1996, 785-848
Ferrari, G. (2002) The Ancient Temple on the Acropolis at Athens, AJA 106, 11-35
Finley, M. I. (1965) Technical Innovation and Economic Progress in the Ancient World, EHR
18, 29-45
Finley, M. I. (1973) The Ancient Economy, London
— (2004) Athenian Demagogues, in Rhodes 2004 [repr. 1985], 163-84
Finley, M. I., B. D. Shaw and R. P. Saller eds. (1983) Economy and Society in Ancient Greece,
London
Fischer, N. (1998) Gymnasia and the Democratic Value of Leisure, in Cartledge, Millett and
Von Reden 1998, 84-104
Flensted-Jensen, P., T. H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein eds. (2000) Polis and Politics. Studies in
Ancient Greek History, Copenhagen
Floren, J. and W. Fuchs (1987) Archaische Plastik, Munich
Forbes, R. J. (1966) Studies in Ancient Technology VII, Leiden
Fornara, C. W. and L. J. Samons (1991) Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles, Berkeley CA
Forsdyke, S. (2000) Exile, Ostracism and the Athenian Democracy, ClAnt 19, 232-63
— (2001) Athenian Democratic Ideology and Herodotus’ “Histories”, AJPh 122, 329-58
Forsén, B. (1996) Griechische Gliederweihungen: eine Untersuchung zu ihrer Typologie und
ihrer religions- und sozialgeschichtlichen Bedeutung, Helsinki
Francis, D. and M. Vickers (1981) Leagros Kalos, ProcCambrPhilSoc 207, 97-136
Frel, J. (1966) Ateliers et sculpteurs attiques, fin 5ème – début 4ème s., Eirene 5, 79-98
— (1971) Les sculpteurs attiques anonymes: 430-400, Prague
Frel, J. and B. Kingsley (1970) Three Attic Sculpture Workshops of the Early Fourth Century
BC, GRBS 11.3, 197-218
French, A. (1991) Economic Conditions in Fourth-Century Athens, GR 38, 24-40
— (2006) The Growth of the Athenian Economy [repr. 1964], London
Freytag, B. von and U. Knigge (1987) Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos 1983-85, AA 1987,
481-99
Friedländer, P. and H. B. Hoffleit (1948) Epigrammata. Greek Inscriptions in Verse From the
Beginnings to the Persian Wars, Berkeley
Friis Johansen, K. (1951) The Attic Grave-Reliefs of the Classical Period, Copenhagen
Frontisi-Ducroux, F. (1975) Dédale: mythologie de l’artisan en Grèce ancienne, Paris
Fuchs, W. (1961) Attisches Weihrelief im Vatikan, RM 68, 167-81
305
Fuchs, W. (1979) Die Skulptur der Griechen, Munich
Funke, P. (2006) Fremde und Nicht-Bürger in griechischen Heiligtümern, in Naso 2006, 1-12
Furtwängler, A. E. (1883-87) Die Sammlung Sabouroff: Kunstdenkmäler aus Griechenland,
Berlin
Furtwängler, A. E. and H. J. Kienast (1989) Der Nordbau im Heraion von Samos, Bonn
Gabelmann, H. (1965) Studien zum frühgriechischen Löwenbild, Berlin
Gardiner, E. N. (1930) Athletics of the Ancient World, Oxford
Garland, R. S. J. (1985) The Greek Way of Death, London
— (1989) The Well-Ordered Corpse: An Investigation of the Motives Behind Greek
Funerary Legislation, BICS 36, 1-15
— (1984) Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Athens, BSA 79, 75-123
Garnsey, P. K. Hopkins and C. R. Whittaker eds. (1983) Trade in the Ancient Economy,
London
Gillis, C., C. Risberg and B. Sjöberg eds. (1995) Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece:
Aspects of Trade, Jonsered
Girard, P. (1877) Catalogue descriptive des ex-voto à Esculape, BCH I, 158-9
Glotz, G. (1926) Ancient Greece at Work: An Economic History of Greece from the Homeric
Period to the Roman Conquest, New York
Goette, H. R. (2007) Choregic Monuments and the Athenian Democracy, in Wilson 2007,
122-49
Goette, H. R., K. Polikrati, T. Vacoulis and Y. Mariatis (1999) Investigation of the Greyish-Blue
Marble of Pentelikon and Hymettus, in Asmosia IV, 83-90
Goldberg, M. (1982) Archaic Greek Akroteria, AJA 86, 210-18
Golden, M. (2000) A Decade of Demography. Recent Trends in the Study of Greek and Roman
Populations, in Flensted-Jensen, Nielsen and Rubinstein 2000, 23-40
Goldhill, S. (1998) The Seductions of the Gaze: Socrates and his Girlfriends, in Cartledge,
Millett and Von Reden 1998, 105-24
Gorgoni, C., L. Lazzarini, P. Pallante and B. Turi (2002) An Updated and Detailed
Mineropetrographic and C-O Stable Isotopic Reference Database for the Main
Mediterranean Marbles Used in Antiquity, in Asmosia V, 115-31
Gouschin, V. (1999) Pisistratus’ Leadership in A.P. 13.4 and the Establishment of the Tyranny
of 561/60 BC, ClQ 49, 14-23
Graeff, B. (1890) Die Gruppe der Tyrannenmörder, AM 15, 1-39
Greco, E. (2005) Teseo e Romolo. Le origini di Atene e Roma a confronto. Atti del Convegno
internazionale di studi. Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene, Atene, 30 giugno - 1 luglio
2003, Athens
306
Greene, K. (2000) Technological Innovation and Economic Progress in the Ancient World: M.
I. Finley re-considered, EHR 53, 29-59
Griffeth, R. and C. G. Thomas (1981) The City-State in Five Cultures, Santa Barbara CA
Gruben, G. and K. Vierneisel (1964) Die Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos, AA, 384-467
Güntner, G. (1994) Göttervereine und Götterversammlungen auf attischen Weihreliefs:
Untersuchungen zur Typologie und Bedeutung, Würzburg
Guralnick, E. (1973) Kouroi, Canon and Men: A Computer Study of Proportions, CSHVB 4
(Computer Studies in the Humanities and Verbal Behavior), 77-80
Hamiaux, M. and A. Pasquier (1998) Musée du Louvre. Département des antiquités grecques
étrusques et romaines. Les sculptures grecques, Paris
Hampe, R. (1941) Der Wagenlenker von Delphi, Munich
Hansen, M. H. (1993) The Ancient Greek City-State: Symposium on the Occasion of the 250th
Anniversary of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, July 1-4, 1992,
Copenhagen
Hansen, P. A. (1975) A List of Greek Verse Inscriptions down to 400 BC: An Analytical Survey,
Copenhagen
— (1983) Carmina epigraphica Graeca: saeculorum VIII-V a. Chr., Berlin
Harris, D. (1995) The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion, Oxford
Harris, E. M. (2002) Workshops, Marketplace and Household. The Nature of Technical
Specialization in Classical Athens and Its Influence on Economy and Society, in
Cartledge, Cohen and Foxhall 2002, 67-99
— (2006) Solon and the Spirit of the Laws in Archaic and Classical Greece, in Blok and
Lardinois 2006, 290-318
Harris, W. (1989) Ancient Literacy, Cambridge MA
Harrison, E. (1955) Fragments of an Early Attic Kouros from the Athenian Agora, Hesperia
24, 290-304
— (1956) Archaic Gravestones from the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 25, 25
— (1960) New Sculpture from the Athenian Agora, 1959, Hesperia 29, 369-92
— (1965) The Athenian Agora XI. Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, Princeton NJ
— (1977) Alkamenes’ Sculpture for the Hephaisteion: Part I, the Cult Statues, AJA 81, 13778
Harrison, E. (1991) The Dress of the Archaic Greek Korai, in D. Buitron-Oliver, New
Perspectives in Early Greek Art, Washington 1991, 217-39
Hausmann, U. (1948) Kunst und Heiltum: Untersuchungen zu den griechischen
Asklepiosreliefs, Potsdam
Hedrick, C. W., Jr. (1988) The Temple and Cult of Apollo Patroos in Athens, AJA 92, 185-210
307
Hedrick, C. W., Jr. (1999) Democracy and the Athenian Epigraphical Habit, Hesperia 68,
387-439
Heizer, R. F. (1966) Ancient Heavy Transport, Methods and Achievements, Science 153,
821-30
Hekler, A. (1924) Die Kunst des Phidias, Stuttgart
Hellström, P. and B. Alroth eds. (1996) Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World:
Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1993, Uppsala
Helmis, A. (2001) Sépultures et rituels juridiques en Grèce ancienne, in Hoffmann and LezziHafter 2001, 175-82
Henry, A. S. (2002) The Athenian State Secretariate and Provisions for Publishing and
Erecting Decrees, Hesperia 71, 91-118
Hermann, J. J., N. Herz and R. Newman eds. (2002) Asmosia V. Interdisciplinary Studies on
Ancient Stone. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Association for
the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, London
Herz, N. (2000) The Classical Marble Quarries of Paros. Paros-1, Paros-2 and Paros-3, in
Schilardi and Katsonopoulos 2000, 27-31
Herz, N. and M. Waelkens eds. (1988) Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade,
Dordrecht
Heydemann, H. (1874) Die antiken Marmor-Bildwerke in der sogenannten Stoa des Hadrian,
dem Windthurm des Andronikus, dem Wärterhäuschen auf der Akropolis und der
Ephorie im Cultusministerium zu Athen, Berlin
Hiller, H. (1975) Ionische Grabreliefs der ersten Hälfte des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Tübingen
Himmelmann, N. (1979) Zur Entlohnung künstlerischer Tätigkeit in klassischen
Bauinschriften, JdI 94, 127-42
— (1994) Realistische Themen in der griechischen Kunst der archaischen und klassischen
Zeit, Berlin
— (1998) Reading Greek art, Princeton NJ
Himmelmann-Wildschütz, N. (1958) Ein archaisches Gemälde vom Friedhof am Eridanos, AM
73, 1-5
Hind, J. G. F. (1974) The ‘Tyrannis’ and the Exiles of Pisistratus, CQ 24, 1-18
Hoepfner, W. (1973) Das Grabmonument des Pythagoras aus Selymbria, AM 88, 145-63
Hoepfner, W. ed. (1997), Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis. Internationales Symposium
vom 7-9 Juli 1995, Berlin
Hoffmann, G. and A. Lezzi-Hafter (2001) Les pierres de l’offrande. Autour de l’oeuvre de
Christoph W. Clairmont, Kilchberg
Hölscher, F. (1972) Die Bedeutung archaischer Tierkampfbilder, Würzburg
308
Hölscher, T. (1996) Politik und Öffentlichkeit im demokratischen Athen: Räume, Denkmäler,
Mythen, in Sakellariou 1996, 171-87
Holtzmann, B. (2003) L’Acropôle d’Athènes. Monuments, cultes et histoire du sanctuaire
d’Athèna Polias, Paris
Homolle, T. (1909) Fouilles de Delphes. Tome III, Épigraphie, Paris
Hondius, J. J. E. (1925) Novae Inscriptiones Atticae, Leiden
Hooker, G. T. W. ed. (1963) Parthenos and Parthenon, Oxford
Hopper, R. J. (1979) Trade and Industry in Classical Greece, London
Hornblower, S. and C. Morgan eds. (2007) Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From
Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire, Oxford
Houby-Nielsen, S. (1992) Interaction between Chieftains and Citizens? 7th Century BC Burial
Customs in Athens, ActaHyp 4, 343-74
— (1995) ‘Burial Language’ in Archaic and Classical Kerameikos, in Proceedings of the
Danish Institute at Athens I, 129-91
Houser, C. (1988) Slain Statues: Classical Murder Mysteries, in A. Delivorrias, E. Zervoudaki,
B. Lambrinoudakis, A. Lembesi, B. Petrakos and A. Kalogeropoulou eds., Praktika/ tou
XII Dieqnou/j Sunedri/ou Klasikh/j Arxaiologi/aj, Aqh/na 4 - 10 Septembri/ou 1983, 112–
15
Humphrey, J. W., J. P. Oleson and A. N. Sherwood eds. (1998) Greek and Roman Technology:
A Sourcebook. Annotated translations of Greek and Latin Texts and Documents, London
Humphreys, S. C. (1980) Family Tombs and Tomb Cult in Ancient Athens: Tradition or
Traditionalism?, JHS 100, 96-126
— (1983) The Family, Women and Death: Comparative Studies, London
— (2004) Public and Private Interests in Classical Athens, in Rhodes 2004 [repr. 1985],
225-38
Humphreys, S. C. and H. King eds. (1981) Mortality and Immortality. The Anthropology and
Archaeology of Death: Proceedings of a Meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology
and Related Subjects held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University, June 1980,
London
Hurwit, J. M. (1985) The Art and Culture of Early Greece, 1100-480 BC, Ithaca NY
— (1989) The Kritios Boy: Discovery, Reconstruction and Date, AJA 93, 41-80
— (1997) Review Article: The Death of the Sculptor?, AJA 101, 587-91
— (1999) The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Neolithic
Era to the Present, Cambridge
— (2004) The Acropolis in the Age of Pericles, Cambridge
Immerwahr, H. R. (1967) An Inscribed Terracotta Ball in Boston, GRBS 8, 255-66
309
Immerwahr, H. R. (1990) Attic Script: A Survey, Oxford
Ioakimidou, Chr. (1997) Die Statuenreihen griechischer Poleis und Bünde aus
spätarchaischer und klassischer Zeit, [diss.] Heidelberg
Irwin, E. (2005) Solon and Early Greek Poetry. The Politics of Exhortation, Cambridge
Isler-Kerènyi, C. (1969) Nike. Der Typus der laufenden Flügelfrau in archaischer Zeit, Zürich
Jacob-Felsch, M. (1969) Die Entwicklung griechischer Statuenbasen und die Aufstellung der
Statuen, [diss.] Waldsassen
Jacobsthal, P. (1933) Diskoi, Berlin
Jacquemin, A. (1999) Offrandes monumentales à Delphes, Paris
Jantzen, J. (1963) Eine archaische Grabstele von der Pnyx, AA, 431-9
Jeffery, A. (1962) The Inscribed Gravestones of Attica, BSA 57, 115-53
Jeffery, L. H. (1948) The Boustrophedon Sacral Inscriptions from the Agora, Hesperia 17,
86-111
Jeffery, L. H. and P. Cartledge (1982) Sparta and Samos: A Special Relationship?, CQ 32,
243-65
Jeffery, L. H. and A. W. Johnston (1990) The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the
Origin of the Greek Alphabet and Its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries
BC, Oxford
Jockey, P. (2000) “Aphrodite express”. À propos d’une école (?) délienne de sculpture, in
Blondé and Muller 2000, 75-90
Johnson, T. and C. Dandeker (1989) Patronage: Relation and System, in Wallace-Hadrill
1989, 219-41
Johnston, A. (1994) Review: Athenian Sculptors’ Studios, CR 44 (N.S.), 158-160
Jordan, D. and J. Traill eds. (2003) Lettered Attica: A Day of Attic Epigraphy. Proceedings of
the Athens Symposium, 8 March 2000, Toronto
Jüthner, J. (1935) Diskoi, ÖJh 29, 32-45
Kallet-Marx, L. (1989) Did Tribute Fund the Parthenon?, ClAnt 8, 252-66
Kallipolitis, V. (1968) Une nouvelle stèle du Musée National d’Athènes, AAA 1, 85-9
— (1969) Une stèle archaïque du mur de Thémistocle, AAA 2, 394-7
Kaltsas, N. (2001) Eqhniko/ Arxaiologiko/ Mousei/o: ta glupta/. Kata/logoj, Athens
Karakasi, K. (2001) Archaische Koren, Munich
Kavvadias, P. and G. Kawerau (1906) H anaskafh/ thj Akropo/lewj apo/ tou 1885 me/xri tou
1890: Die Ausgrabung der Akropolis vom Jahre 1885 bis zum 1890, Athens
Karakatsanis, P. (1986) Studien zu archaischen Kolossalwerken, Frankfurt am Main
Karo, G. H. (1934) Archäologische Funde vom Juli 1933 bis Juli 1934. Griechenland und
Dodekanes, AA 1934, 123-96
Karo, G. H. (1943) An Attic Cemetery: Excavations in the Kerameikos at Athens under Gustav
310
Oberlaender and the Oberlaender Trust, Philadelphia
Karouzou, S. (1968) National Archaeological Museum, Collection of Sculpture: A Catalogue,
Athens
Karusos, Chr. (1961) Aristodikos: zur Geschichte der spätarchaisch-attischen Plastik und der
Grabstatue, Stuttgart
Karusu, S. (1961) Ermh/j Yuxopompo/j, AM 76, 91-106
Kastriotis, P. (1917) A)na/glufon anaqhmatiko/n, AE 1917, 227-9
Keesling, C. M. (1995) Review, Gnomon 67, 630-3
— (1999) Endoios’s Painting from the Themistoklean Wall: A Reconstruction, Hesperia 68,
509-48
— (2003) The Votive Statues of the Athenian Acropolis, Cambridge
— (2003)1 Rereading the Acropolis Dedications, in Jordan and Traill 2003, 41-54
Keesling, C. M. (2005) Patrons of Athenian Votive Monuments of the Archaic and Classical
Periods, Hesperia 74, 395-426
Kempers, B. (1994) Painting, Power, and Patronage: The Rise of the Professional Artist in the
Italian Renaissance, London
— (1999) Van Maecenas naar modern mecenaat. Twee millennia inhoud en illusie,
Tijdschrift voor Literatuurwetenschap 3, 258-72
Kiilerich, B. (1988) Bluebeard - A Snake-Tailed Geryon?, OpAth 17, 123-36
Kim, H. S. (2002) Small Change and the Moneyed Economy, in Cartledge, Cohen and Foxhall
2002, 44-51
Kindermann, H. (1979) Das Theaterpublikum der Antike, Salzburg
Kissas, K. (2000) Die attischen Statuen- und Stelenbasen archaischer Zeit, Bonn
Kistler, E. (1998) Die Opferrinne-Zeremonie: Bankettideologie am Grab, Orientalisierung und
Formierung einer Adelsgesellschaft in Athen, Stuttgart
Kjellberg, E. (1926) Studien zu den attischen Reliefs des V. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Uppsala
Kledt, A. (2004) Die Entführung Kores. Studien zur athenisch-eleusinischen Demeterreligion,
Stuttgart
Kleine, J. (1973) Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der attischen Kunst von Peisistratos bis
Themistokles, Tübingen
Kluwe, E. (1976) Attische Adelsgeschlechter und ihre Rolle als Auftraggeber in der bildenden
Kunst der spätarchaischen und frühklassischen Zeit, in Müller 1976, 29-63
— (1978) Handwerk und Produktion in der frühgriechischen Polis, Jahrbuch für
Wirtschaftsgeschichte 4, 109-33
Knigge, U. (1965) Bewegte Figuren der Grossplastik im strengen Stil, Munich
— (1970) Arxaio/thtej kai mnhmei/a Aqhnw/n, ADelt 25.II1 (Chron.), 24-39
311
Knigge, U. (1976) Der Südhügel. Kerameikos IX, Berlin
— (1988) Der Kerameikos von Athen. Führung durch Ausgrabungen und Geschichte,
Athens
— (2005) Der Bau Z. Kerameikos XVII, Munich
Koch-Brinkmann, U. and R. Posamentir 2005 Versiering en beschildering van een Attische
graf-lekythos (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Kopenhagen), in Brinkmann and Brijder 2005,
150-9
Köhler, U. (1885) Die attischen Grabsteine des fünften Jahrhunderts, AM 10, 359-79
— (1888) Die Grabstätte bei der Hagia Trias, Hermes 23, 474-6
Kokkorou-Alewras, G. (1995) Archaische Naxische Bildhauerei, AP 24, 37-138
— (2000) The Use and Distribution of Parian Marble During the Archaic Period, in Schilardi
and Katsonopoulos 2000, 143-53
Kokula, G. (1984) Marmorlutrophoren, Berlin
Kolb, F. (1977) Die Bau-, Religions- und Kulturpolitik der Peisistratiden, JdI 92, 99-138
Konstantinou, I. K. (1931-2) O kou/roj tou Ilissou/, ADelt 14.I, 41-56
Korres, M. (1994, 2nd ed.) Apo/ thn Pente/lh ston Parqenw/na, Athens
— (1995) The Ancient Quarries on Mount Pentelikon, in Asmosia III, 1-5
— (1997) An Early Attic Ionic Capital and the Kekropion on the Acropolis, in Palagia 1997,
95-107
— (1997)1 Die Athena-Tempel auf der Akropolis, in Hoepfner 1997, 218-43
— (2002) On the North Wall of the Acropolis, in Stamatopoulou and Yeroulanou 2002,
179-86
Kosmopoulou, A. (2002) The Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases in the Archaic and
Classical Periods, Madison WI
Koumanoudis, S. A. (1871) A)ttikh/j epigrafai/ epitu/mbioi, Athens
Kozelj, T. (1988) Extraction of Blocks in Antiquity: Special Methods of Analysis, in Herz and
Waelkens 1988, 31-9
Krämer, E. (2001) Hermen bärtiger Götter: klassische Vorbilder und Formen der Rezeption,
Münster
Krantz, P. (1972) Frühe griechische Sitzfiguren. Zum Problem der Typenbildung und des
orientalischen Einflusses in den frühen griechischen Rundplastik, AM 87, 1-55
Kreeb, M. (1999) Inschriften auf Stein im Kerameikos, AM 114, 9-12
Kretschmann, D. E. (2003) Sacred, Civic, Private. Boundaries and the Differentiation of Space
in Archaic and Classical Athens, in [Proc. of the] Bijeenkomst OIKOS-onderzoeksgroep
‘Het Heilige en het Profane in archaïsch en klassiek Griekenland’, 16 May 2003, 1-16
Kron, U. (1996) Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism: What Part did Religion Play in the
312
Political and Social Status of Greek Women?, in Hellström and Alroth 1996, 139-82
Krug, A. (1979) Der Fries des Tempels am Ilissos, AP 18, 7-21
Kübler, K. (1934) Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos 1933/34, AA 1934, 196-244
— (1930) Eine attische Löwenstele, AM 55, 201-6
— (1938) Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos I, AA 1938, 588-604
— (1948) Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos, AA 1948, 262-87
— (1959-1970) Die Nekropole der Mitte des 6. bis Ende des 5. Jahrhunderts. Kerameikos
VII.1, Berlin
— (1959-1970) Die Nekropole des späten 8. bis frühen 6. Jahrhunderts. Kerameikos VI,
Berlin
Kunze-Götte, E., K. Tancke and K. Vierneisel (1999, 2nd ed.) Die Nekropole von der Mitte des
6. bis zum Ende des 5. Jahrhunderts: die Beigaben. Kerameikos VII.2, Munich
Kyle, D. G. (1987) Athletics in Ancient Athens, Leiden
— (1996) Gifts and Glory: Panathenaic and Other Greek Athletic Prizes, in Neils 1996,
106-36
Kyparissis, N. (1930-1) O kaqisme/noj arxai+ko/j Dio/nusoj, ADelt 13.I, 119-36
Kyparissis, N. and H. A. Thompson (1938) A Sanctuary of Zeus and Athena Phratrios Newly
Found in Athens, Hesperia 7, 612-25
Kyrieleis, H. ed. (1986) Archaische griechische Plastik: Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums
vom 22. - 25. April 1985 in Athen, Mainz
Lalonde, G. (2006) IG I3 1055 B and the Boundary of Melite and Kollytos, Hesperia 75, 83119
Lamb, W. (1969) Ancient Greek and Roman Bronzes, Chicago IL
Lambert, S. D. (1993) The Phratries of Attica, Ann Arbor MI
Langdon, S. (1987) Gift Exchange in the Geometric Sanctuaries, in Linders and Nordquist
1987, 107-13
Lange, K. (1882) Zwei Köpfe von der Akropolis in Athen, AM 7, 193-210
Langlotz, E. (1947) Phidiasprobleme, Frankfurt am Main
— (1952) Alkamenesprobleme, Berlin
— (1975) Studien zur nordostgriechischen Kunst, Mainz
Lapatin, K. D. S. (2001) Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World,
Oxford
Lape, S. (2002) Solon and the Institution of the “Democratic” Family Form, ClJ 98, 117-39
Larson, J. (2001) Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore, Oxford
Lauter, H. (1974) Zur gesellschaftlichen Stellung des bildenden Künstlers in der griechischen
Klassik, Erlangen
313
Lauter, H. (1980) Zur wirtschaftlichen Position der Praxiteles-Familie im spätklassischen
Athen, AA, 525-31
Lavelle, B. A. (2005) Fame, Money, and Power: The Rise of Peisistratos and ‘Democratic’
Tyranny at Athens, Ann Arbor MI
Lawall, M. L. (2000) Graffiti, Wine Selling, and the Reuse of Amphoras in the Athenian Agora,
ca. 430 to 400 BC, Hesperia 69, 3-90
Lawton, C. (1995) Attic Documentary Reliefs, Oxford
Lazzarini, M. (1976) Le formule delle dediche votive nella Grecia archaica, MemLinc ser. 8, IX,
47-354
Leader, R. E. (1997) In Death Not Divided: Gender, Family and State on Classical Athenian
Grave Stelae, AJA 101, 683-99
Leahy, D. M. (1957) The Spartan Embassy to Lygdamis, JHS 77, 272-5
Lechat, H. (1904) La sculpture Attique avant Phidias: ouvrage, Paris
— (1906) Phidias et la sculpture grecque au V e siècle, Paris
— (1927) La sculpture greque: histoire sommaire de son esprit, de son progrès, de ses
créations, Paris
Lee, M. M. (1996) The Findspots of the Korai from the Acropolis at Athens (abstr.; 97th
Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America), AJA100, 395
Lepsius, C. R. (1891) Griechische Marmorstudien, Berlin
Lévêque, P. and G. Donnay (1967) L’art grec du Musée de Mariemont, Belgique, Bordeaux
Lewis, S. (2006) Ancient Tyranny, Edinburgh
De Libero, L. (1996) Die archaische Tyrannis, Stuttgart
Lindenlauf, A. (1997) Der Perserschutt der Athener Akropolis, in Hoepfner 1997, 46-115
Linders, T. (1972) Studies in the Treasure Records of Artemis Brauronia Found in Athens,
Stockholm
— (1975) The Treasurers of the Other Gods in Athens and their Functions, Meisenheim am
Glan
— (1987) Gods, Gifts, Society, in Linders and Nordquist 1987, 115-22
— (1992) Sacred Finances: Some Observations, in Linders and Alroth 1992, 9-13
— (1996) Ritual Display and the Loss of Power, in Hellström and Alroth 1996, 121-4
Linders, T. and B. Alroth eds. (1992) Economics of Cult in the Ancient Greek World:
Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1990, Uppsala
Linders, T. and G. Nordquist eds. (1987) Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala
Symposium 1985, Uppsala
Lipka, M. (1998) Anmerkungen zur Hekatompedon-Inschrift: Eine Revision, ZPE 122, 79-80
Lippold, G. (1934) Hans Diepolder: Die attischen Grabreliefs, Gnomon 10, 186-95
314
Lippolis, E. (2008) Lo spazio per votare e altre note di topografia sulle agorai di Atene,
ASAtene 84,
37-61
Llewllyn-Jones, L. (2002) A Woman’s View? Dress, Eroticism and the Ideal Female Body in
Athenian Art, in Llewllyn-Jones 2002, 173-202
Llewllyn-Jones, L. ed. (2002)1 Women’s dress in the ancient Greek world, London
Löbl, R. (1997) TEXNH - Techne. Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung dieses Wortes in der Zeit von
Homer bis Aristoteles, Würzburg
Lolling, H. G. (1876) Der Künstler Aristion, AM 1, 174-5
— (1878) Böotische Schauspielerinschriften, AM 3, 134-43
Lolling, H. G. and P. H. A. Wolters (1899) Kata/logoj tou en Aqh/naij Epigrafikou/ Mousei/ou.
Tx. 1o: Arxai+kai/ anaqhmatikai/ epigrafai/, Athens
Lolos, Y. (2002) A Public Column Drum from a Corinthian Quarry, Hesperia 71, 201-7
Loomis, W. T. (1998) Wages, Welfare Costs, and Inflation in Classical Athens, Ann Arbor MI
Losehand, J. (2007) Häuser für die Herrscher Roms und Athens?: Überlegungen zu Funktion
und Bedeutung von Gebäude F auf der Athener Agora und der Regia auf dem Forum
Romanum, Hamburg
Lupu, E. (2003) Sacrificia in the Amphiareion and a Fragmentary Sacred Law from Oropos,
Hesperia 72, 321-40
— (2005) Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents, Leiden
MacDonald, B. R. (1982) The Import of Attic Pottery to Corinth and the Question of Trade
during the Peloponnesian War, JHS 102, 113-23
McNeill, R. L. B. (2005) Notes on the Subject of the Ilissos Temple Frieze, in Barringer and
Hurwit 2005, 103-110
Mallwitz, A. and W. Schiering (1964) Die Werkstatt des Pheidias in Olympia, Berlin
Mangold, M. (1993) Athenatypen auf attischen Weihreliefs des 5. und 4. Jhs v. Chr.
Maniatis, Y., N. Herz and Y. Basiakos eds. (1995) Asmosia III. The Study of Marble and Other
Stones Used in Antiquity. Transactions of the 3rd International Symposium of the
Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones Used in Antiquity, London
Manville, Ph. B. (1990) The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens, Princeton NJ
Mark, I. S. (1995) The Lure of Philosophy: Craft and Higher Learning in Ancient Greece, in
Moon 1995, 25-37
Marshall, F. H. (1909) Some Recent Acquisitions of the British Museum, JHS 29, 151-67
Marconi, C. (2001) L’agora e il santuario. I centri della vita pubblica nella polis di età arcaica
e classica, in M. Vetta ed., La civiltà dei Greci. Forme, luoghi, contesti, Roma, 225-67
Martini, W. (1990) Die archaische Plastik der Griechen, Darmstadt
315
Marx, P. (2001) Akropolis 625 (Endoios Athena) and the Rediscovery of Its Findspot, Hesperia
70, 221-54
Masson, O. (1987) Notes sur les inscriptions grecques du musée du Louvre jadis conservées
au Cabinet des Médailles, BCH 111, 267-79
Mathiopoulos, E. (1968) Zur Topographie der Göttin Athena im fünften Jahrhundert vor
Christus, [diss.] Bonn
Mattusch, C. C. (1982) Bronzeworkers in the Athenian Agora, Princeton, NJ
— (1988) Greek Bronze Statuary: From the Beginnings through the Fifth Century BC,
Ithaca NY
— (1996) Classical Bronzes: The Art and Craft of Greek and Roman Statuary, Ithaca NY
Maughan-Chemin, V. (2006) Les couleurs du marbre chez Pline l’Ancien, Martial et Stace, in
Rouveret, Dubel and Naas 2006, 103-26
McGlew, J. F. (1993) Tyranny and Political Culture in Ancient Greece, Ithaca NY
Meiggs, R. (1963) The Political Implications of the Parthenon, in Hooker 1963, 36-45
Meiggs, R. and D. M. Lewis (1989) A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of
the Fifth Century BC, Oxford
Meritt, B. D. (1936) Greek Inscriptions, Hesperia 5, 355-430
— (1947) Greek Inscriptions. The Thirty-Second Report of the American Excavations in the
Athenian Agora, Hesperia 16, 147-83
— (1952) Greek Inscriptions, Hesperia 21, 340-80
— (1954) Greek Inscriptions, Hesperia 23, 249-50
— (1961) Greek Inscriptions, Hesperia 30, 205-92
— (1963) Greek Inscriptions, Hesperia 32, 1-56
Meritt, B. D., M. L. Lethen and G. A. Stamires (1957) Greek Inscriptions, Hesperia 26, 24-97
Mertens-Horn, M. (1986) Studien zu den griechischen Löwenbildern, RM 93, 1-61
Meyer, E. A. (1993) Epitaphs and Citizenship in Classical Athens, JHS 113, 99-121
Meyer, M. (1989) Die griechischen Urkundenreliefs, Berlin
Meyer, M. and N. Brüggemann (2007) Kore und Kouros: Weihegaben für die Götter, Vienna
Michaelis, A. T. F. and C. A. M. Fennell (1882) Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, Cambridge
Michaud, J. P. (1972) Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en
1971, BCH 96, 593-816
— (1973) Fouilles de Delphes: Tome II. Topographie et Architecture, Paris
Milchhöfer, A. (1879) Sphinx, AM 4, 45-78
— (1880) Gemalte Grabstelen, AM 5, 164-94
Miles, M. M. (1980) The Date of the Temple on the Ilissos River, Hesperia 49, 309-25
Miles, M. M. (1998) The Athenian Agora XXI. The City Eleusinion, Princeton NJ
316
Miller, M. C. (1997) Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural
Receptivity, Cambridge
Miller, S. G. (2000) Naked Democracy, in Flensted-Jensen, Nielsen and Rubinstein 2000,
277-96
— (1974) Menon’s Cistern, Hesperia 43, 194-245
Millett, P. (1989) Patronage and Its Avoidance in Classical Athens, in Wallace-Hadrill 1989,
16-48
Mitropoulou, E. (1977) Corpus I. Attic Votive Reliefs of the 6th and 5th Centuries BC, Athens
Möbius, H. (1916) Form und Bedeutung der sitzenden Gestalt, AM 41, 119-219
— (1968) Die Ornamente der griechischen Grabstelen klassischer und nachklassischer
Zeit, Munich
Möller, A. (2000) Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece, Oxford
Moltesen, M., N. Herz and J. Moon (1992) The Lepsius Marbles, in Asmosia II, 277-81
Monaco, M. C. (2000) Ergasteria: impianti artigianali ceramici ad Atene ed in Attica dal
protogeometrico alle soglie dell’ellenismo, Rome
Moon, W. G. (1995) Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition, Madison WI
Moormann, E. M. (1988) La pittura parietale romana come fonte di conoscenza per la
scultura antica, Assen
— (2000) Ancient Sculpture in the Allard Pierson Museum Amsterdam, Amsterdam
Moormann, E. M. and V. V. Stissi eds. (2009) Shapes and Images. Studies on Attic Black
Figure and Related Topics in Honour of Herman A. G. Brijder, Leuven
Mora, F. (2006) Sovranazionalità e soveraregionalità dei santuari greci: la partecipazione di
stranieri e non cittadini, in Naso 2006, 13-21
Morgan, C. (2007) Debating Patronage: The Cases of Argos and Corinth, in Hornblower and
Morgan 2007, 213-63
Morgan, K. A. (2003) Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and Its Discontents in Ancient Greece,
Austin TX
Morris, I. (1987) Burial and Ancient Society. The Rise of the Greek City-State, Cambridge
— (1989) Attitudes toward Death in Archaic Greece, ClAnt 8, 296-320
— (1992) Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge
— (1992-93) Law, Culture and Funerary Art in Athens, 600-300 BC, Hephaistos 111-2,
35-50
— (1994) The Athenian Economy Twenty Years After ‘The Ancient Economy’, ClPhil 89,
351-66
— (1998) Beyond Democracy and Empire: Athenian Art in Context, in Boedeker and
Raaflaub 1998, 59-86
317
Morris, I. ed. (1994) Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies,
Cambridge
Mosel, J. (1938) Studien zu den beiden archaischen Reliefbasen von Kerameikos, Hildesheim
Mossé, C. (1969) La tyrannie dans la Grèce antique, Paris
— (2004) How a political Myth Takes Shape: Solon, ‘Founding Father’ of the Athenian
Democracy, in Rhodes 2004 [repr. 1979], 242-59
Müller, P. (1978) Löwen und Mischwesen der archaischen griechischen Kunst: eine
Untersuchung über ihre Bedeutung, Zürich
Müller, R. ed. (1976) Der Mensch als Maß der Dinge. Studien zum griechischen Menschenbild
in der Zeit der Blüte und Krise der Polis, Berlin
Müller-Zeis, R. (1994) Griechische Bauopfer und Gründungsdepots, [diss.] Saarbrücken
Muller, A. (2000) Artisans, techniques de production et diffusion. Le cas de la coroplathie, in
Blondé and Muller 2000, 91-106
Muller-Dufeu, M. (2002) La Sculpture grecque. Sources littéraires et épigraphiques, Paris
— (2006) Les couleurs du bronze dans les statues greques d’après les descriptions
antiques, in Rouveret, Dubel and Naas 2006, 93-102
Naso, A. (2006) Stranieri e non cittadini nei santuari greci: atti del convegno internazionale,
Florence
Nauta, R. R. (2002) Poetry for Patrons: Literary Communication in the Age of Domitian,
Leiden
— (2001) Framing the Gift: The Politics of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi, ClAnt 20,
273-336
— (2004) The Athenian Treasury at Delphi and the Material of Politics, ClAnt 23, 63-93
Németh, G. (1994) Med’ o)nqon e)gbale=n: Regulations Concerning Everyday Life in a Greek
Temenos, in Hägg 1994, 59-64
Neumann, G. (1964) Ein spätklassisches Skulpturenfragment aus Athen, AM 79, 137-44
— (1979) Probleme des griechischen Weihreliefs, Tübingen
Nevett, L. C. (1995) Gender Relations in the Classical Greek Household: The Archaeological
Evidence, BSA 91, 363-81
— (2000) A Real Estate ‘Market’ in Classical Greece? : The Example of Town Housing, BSA
95, 329-43
Nicholls, R. V. (1995) The Stele-Goddess Workshop: Terracottas from Well U 13:1 in the
Athenian Agora, Hesperia 64, 405-92
Nick, G. (2002) Die Athena Parthenos: Studien zum griechischen Kultbild und seiner
Rezeption, Mainz
Nielsen, T. H., L. Bjerstrup, M. H. J. Hansen, L. Rubinstein and T. Vestergard (1989) Athenian
318
Grave Monuments and Social Class, GRBS 30, 411-20
Niemeyer, H. G. (1964) Attische Bronzestatuetten der spätarchaischen und früh-klassischen
Zeit, Berlin
Niemeyer, W.-D. (2002) Der Kuros vom heiligen Tor: überraschende Neufunde archaischer
Skulptur im Kerameikos in Athen, Mainz
Noack, F. (1907) Die Mauern Athens, Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen. Die Einzelfunde,
AM 32, 473-566
Oakley, J. H. (2004) Picturing Death in Classical Athens, Cambridge
Oakley, J. H. and R. H. Sinos (1993) The Wedding in Ancient Athens, Madison WI
Ober, J. (1981) Rock-cut Inscriptions from Mt. Hymettos, Hesperia 50, 68-77
— (1989) Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the
People, Princeton NJ
— (2004) The Athenian Revolution of 508/7 BC: Violence, Authority and the Origins of
Democracy, in Rhodes 2004 [repr. 1997], 260-86
Ohly, D. (1962) Athen: Kerameikos-Grabung, ADelt 17.I, 19
— (1962)1 Zwei Bruchstücke einer archaischen Gorgo aus dem Kerameikos, AM 77, 92104
— (1965) Kerameikos-Grabung. Tätigkeitsbericht 1956-61, AA 1965, 277-376
Oliver, G. J. (2000) Athenian Funerary Monuments: Style, Grandeur, and Cost, in Oliver
20001, 59-80
Oliver, G. J. ed. (2000)1 The Epigraphy of Death: Studies in the History and Society of Greece
and Rome, Liverpool
Onians, J. (1991) Idea and Product: Potter and Philosopher in Classical Athens, Journal of
Design History 4, 65-73
D’ Onofrio, A. M. (1982) Korai e kouroi funerarici Attici, AnnAStorAnt 4, 135-70
— (1995) Soggetti sociali e tipi iconographici nella scultura attica arcaica, in VerbanckPierard and Viviers 1995, 185-209
Orlandos, A. (1955-8) Ta ulika/ domh/j twn arxai/wn Ellh/nwn kai oi tro/poi efarmogh/j
autw/n: kata/ touj suggafei/j, taj epigrafa/j kai ta mnhmei/a, Athens
Osanna, M. (2001) Pausania sull’ Acropoli. Tra l’ Atena di Endoios e l’ agalma caduto dal
cielo, MEFRA 113, 321-340
Osborne, M. J. (1998) Archaic and Classical Greek Art, Oxford
Osborne, M. J. and S. G. Byrne (1996) The Foreign Residents of Athens. An Annex to the
Lexicon of Greek Personal Names: Attica, Leuven
Osborne, R. (1994) Looking on Greek Style. Does the Sculpted Girl Speak to Women too?, in
Morris 1994, 81-96
319
Osborne, R. (1996) Funerary Monuments: The Democratic Citizen and the Representation of
Women, in Sakellariou 1996, 229-42
— (1998) Inter-Personal Relations on Athenian Pots: Putting Others in their Place, in
Cartledge, Millett and Von Reden 1998, 13-36
— (2004) Law, the Democratic Citizen and the Representation of Women in Classical
Athens, in R. Osborne ed., Studies in Ancient Greek and Roman Society, Cambridge,
38-60
— (2004)1 Competitive Festivals and the Polis: A Context for Dramatic Festivals at Athens,
in Rhodes 2004 [repr. 1993], 207-24
Ostwald, M. (1995) Public Expense: Whose Obligation? Athens 600-454 BCE, Proceedings of
the American Philosophical Society 139, 368-79
Overbeck, J. A. (1959) Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Künste bei den
Griechen [repr. 1868], Hildesheim
Pachygianni-Kaloudi, P. (1978) Kefalh/ ermidi/ou, ADelt 33.I, 342-53
Palagia, O. (1995) Akropolis Museum 581: A Family at the Apaturia?, Hesperia 64, 493-501
— (2000) Parian Marble and the Athenians, in Schilardi and Katsonopoulos 2000, 347-54
— (2005) Interpretations of Two Athenian Friezes: The Temple on the Ilissos and the
Temple of Athena Nike, in Barringer and Hurwit 2005, 177-92
Palagia, O. ed. (2006) Greek Sculpture: Function, Materials and Techniques in the Archaic
and Classical Periods, Cambridge
— (2009) Art in Athens During the Peloponnesian War, Cambridge
Palagia, O. and N. Herz (2002) Investigation of Marbles at Delphi, in Asmosia V, 240-9
Papalexandrou, N. (2005) The Visual Poetics of Power: Warriors, Youths, and Tripods in Early
Greece, Lanham MD
Papapostolou, I. A. (1966) Qrau/sma xarakth/j sth/lhj, ADelt 21.I, 116-21
Parlama, L. and N. Chr. Stampolidis, eds. (2000) The City Beneath the City. Antiquities from
the Metropolitan Railway excavations, Athens
Parker, R. (1996) Athenian Religion: A History, Oxford
— (1998) Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion, in C. Gill, N. Postlewaith and R.
Seaford eds., Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, Oxford 1998, 105-25
Parker, V. (2007) Tyrants and Lawgivers, in H. A. Shapiro ed., The Cambridge Companion to
Archaic Greece, Cambridge 2007, 13-39
Parkins, H. and C. J. Smith (1998) Trade, Traders, and the Ancient City, London
Patterson, C. (1981) Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451-50 BC, Salem NH
— (2006) ‘Citizen Cemeteries’ in Classical Athens?, CQ 56, 48-56
— (2006)1 Athenian Citizenship Law, in M. Gagarin and D. Cohen eds., The Cambridge
320
Companion to Ancient Greek Law, Cambridge 2006, 267-89
Payne, H. and G. M. Young (1936) Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis, London
Pedley, J. G. (1976) Greek Sculpture of the Archaic Period. The Island Workshops, Mainz
— (2005) Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge
Pedrina, M. (2001) I gesti del dolore nella ceramica attica (VI-V secolo), Venice
Peek, W. (1941) Inschriften, Ostraka, Fluchtafeln, Berlin
Peek, W. (1942) Attische Inschriften. Nachträge und Verbesserungen zu IG I2.II2, AM 67, 1217
— (1954) Attische Grabschriften I, Berlin
— (1960) Griechische Grabgedichte, Berlin
— (1980) Attische Versinschriften, Berlin
Pepelasis, A. A. (1959) The Legal System and Economic Development of Greece, JEH 19,
173-98
Peppas-Delmousou, N. (1969) Peri/ tou “Yhfi/smatoj tou Qemistokle/ouj” kai thj sxetikh/j
bibliografi/aj, AAA 2, 146-52
Perdrizet, P. (1903) De quelques monuments figurés du culte d’Athèna Ergané, in G. Perrot,
Mélanges Perrot: recueil de mémoires concernant l'archéologie classique, la littérature et
l'histoire anciennes, Paris 1903, 259-63
Peschlow-Bindokat (1972) Demeter und Kore in der attischen Kunst, JdI 87, 60-157
Petrakos, B. (1998) Bibliografi/a twn anaskafw/n thj Arxaiologikh/j Etairei/aj ston
Kerameiko/, Mentor 48, 150-62
Pfaff, C. (2001) Fifth-Century Contractors’ Marks at the Argive Heraion, JHS 121, 150-3
Philipp, H. (1968) Tektonon Daidala: der bildende Künstler und sein Werk im vorplatonischen
Schrifttum, Berlin
Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., J. Gould and D. M. Lewis (1988, 2nd ed.) The Dramatic Festivals of
Athens, Oxford
Picón, C. A., The Ilissos Temple Reconsidered, AJA 82, 47-81
Pimpl, H. (1997) Perirrhanteria und Louteria: Entwicklung und Verwendung grosser Marmorund Kalksteinbecken auf figürlichem und säulenartigem Untersatz in Griechenland,
Berlin
Pleket, H. (1992) The Participants in the Ancient Olympic Games: Social Background and
Mentality, in W. Coulson and H. Kyrieleis, Proceedings of an International Symposium on
the Olympic Games, Athens 1992, 147-52
Plommer, H. (1960) The Archaic Acropolis: Some Problems, JHS 80, 127-59
Polanyi, K. (1963) Ports of Trade in Early Societies, JEH 23, 30-45
De Polignac, F. (1984) La naissance de la cité grecque: cultes, espace et société VIIIe-VIIe
siècles avant J.- C., Paris
321
De Polignac, F. (1996) Offrandes, mémoire et compétition ritualisée dans les sanctuaires
grecs a l’époque géométrique, in Hellström and Alroth 1996, 59-66
— (2005) Usages de l’écriture dans les sanctuaires du haut archaïsme, in Dasen and
Piérart 2005 (Kernos suppl. 15), 13-25
Pollitt, J. J. (1972) Art and Experience in Ancient Greece, Cambridge
— (1974) The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History and Terminology, New
Haven CT
— (1990) The Art of Ancient Greece: Sources and Documents, Cambridge
— (1995) The Canon of Polykleitos and Other Canons, in Moon 1995, 19-24
Pomeroy, S. B. (1976) Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity,
London
Poulsen, F. (1937) Der strenge Stil, Copenhagen
— (1951) Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen
Praschniker, C. (1928) Die ‘angelehnte’ Aphrodite, in W. Amelung ed., Antike Plastik.
Walther Amelung zum 60. Geburtstag, Berlin 1928, 176-81
Price, M. (2005) Het aanmaken en de toepassing van minerale pigmenten, in Brinkmann
and Brijder 2005, 24-8
Pritchett, W. K. (1940) Greek Inscriptions: Dedication to Demeter and Kore, Hesperia 9,
97-133
Prukakis, A. M. (1971) The Evolution of the Attic Marble Lekythoi and the Problems of
Identifying the Dead among the Figures, [diss.] London
Prukakis-Christodulopulos, A. (1970) Einige Marmorlekythen, AM 85, 54-99
Raaflaub, K. A. (1983) Democracy, Oligarchy, and the Concept of the “Free Citizen” in Late
Fifth-Century Athens, Political Theory 11, 517-44
— (1993) Homer to Solon. The Rise of the Polis: The Written Sources, in Hansen 1993,
41-105
— (2000) Zeus Eleutherios, Dionysos the Liberator, and the Athenian Tyrannicides.
Anachronistic Uses of Fifth-Century Political Concepts, in Flensted-Jensen, Nielsen and
Rubinstein 2000, 249-75
Raftopoulou, E. (1966) Une statue argienne d’Athéna, BCH 90, 48-81
Randall, R. H., Jr. (1953) The Erechtheum Workmen, AJA 57, 199-210
Raubitschek, A. E. (1939-40) Early Attic Votive Monuments, BSA 40, 17-37
— (1949) Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis; a Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the
Sixth and Fifth Centuries BC, Cambridge MA
Rausch, M. (1999) Isonomia in Athen: Veränderungen des öffentlichen Lebens vom Sturz der
Tyrannis bis zur zweiten Perserabwehr, Frankfurt am Main
322
[Réd.] (1923) Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1922, BCH
47, 498-544
Reden, S. von (1995) Exchange in Ancient Greece, London
Reden, S. von (1997) Money, Law and Exchange: Coinage in the Greek Polis, JHS 117, 15476
Reed, C. M. (2003) Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge
Rehm, R. (1994) Marriage to Death: The Conflation of Wedding and Funeral Rituals in Greek
Tragedy, Princeton NJ
Renfrew, C. and J. F. Cherry (1986) Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change,
Cambridge
Rhodes, P. J. (2000) Who Ran Democratic Athens?, in Flensted-Jensen, Nielsen and
Rubinstein 2000, 465-77
— (2006) The Reforms and Laws of Solon. An Optimistic View, in Blok and Lardinois 2006,
248-60
Rhodes, P. J. ed. (2004) Athenian Democracy, Oxford
Richardson, M. (2000) The Location of Inscribed Laws in Fourth-Century Athens. IG II2 244,
on Rebuilding the Walls of Piraeus (377/6 BC), in Flensted-Jensen, Nielsen and
Rubinstein 2000, 601-15
Richter, G. M. A. (1926) Ancient Furniture: A History of Greek Etruscan and Roman Furniture,
London
— (1930) Animals in Greek Sculpture. A Survey, Oxford
— (1945) Peisistratos’ Law Regarding Tombs, AJA 49, 152
— (1950, 2nd ed.) The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks, New Haven CT
— (1951) Three Critical Periods in Greek Sculpture, London
— (1953) Handbook of the Greek Collection, Cambridge MA
— (1954) Catalogue of Greek Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Oxford
— (1957, 3d ed.) The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks, New Haven CT
— (1961) The Archaic Gravestones of Attica, London
— (1968) Korai: Archaic Greek Maidens. A Study of the Development of the Kore Type in
Greek Sculpture, London
— (1969, 6th ed.) A Handbook of Greek Art, London
— (1970) Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths. A Study of the Development of the Kouros Type in
Greek Sculpture, London
— (1970)1 Perspective in Greek and Roman Art, London
De Ridder, A. (1896) Catalogue des bronzes trouvés sur l’Acropole d’Athènes, Paris
Ridgway, B. S. (1969) Stone Carving: Sculpture, in Roebuck 1969, 96-117
— (1970) The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture, Princeton NJ
323
Ridgway, B. S. (1971) The Setting of Greek Sculpture, Hesperia 40, 336-56
— (1977, 1st ed.) The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, Princeton NJ
— (1981) Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, Princeton NJ
— (1982) Of Kouroi and Korai - Attic Variety, in Thompson 1982, 118-27
— (1993, 2nd ed.) The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, Chicago IL
— (1997) Fourth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, London
Riemann, H. (1940) Die Skulpturen vom 5. Jahrhundert bis in die Römische Zeit [reprint
1974], Berlin
Risberg, C. (1992) Metal-Working in Greek Sanctuaries, in Linders and Alroth 1992, 33-40
Robb, K. (1994) Literacy and Paideia in Ancient Greece, Oxford
Roberts, S. R. and A. Glock (1986) The Stoa Gutter Well: A Late Archaic Deposit in the
Athenian Agora, Hesperia 55, 1-74
Robertson, C. M. (1992) The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens, Cambridge
Robertson, M. (1977) Jumpers, Burlington Magazine 119, 78-88
— (1985) Greek Art and Religion, in P. E. Easterling and J. V. Muir eds., Greek Religion and
Society, Cambridge 1985, 155-90
Robertson, N. (1987) The True Meaning of the “Wooden Wall”, ClPhil 82, 1-20
— (1990) The Laws of Athens, 410-399 BC: The Evidence for Review and Publication, JHS
110, 43-75
Robertson, N. (1998) The City Center of Archaic Athens, Hesperia 67, 283-302
— (2005) Athenian Shrines of Aphrodite, and the Early Development of the City, in Greco
2005, 43-112
Rockwell, P. (1991) Unfinished statuary associated with a sculptor's studio, in R. Smith ed.,
Aphrodisias Papers II. The Theatre, a Sculptor's Workshop, Philosophers, and Coin
Types. Third International Aphrodisias Colloquium Held at New York University on 7 and
8 April, 1989, Ann Arbor MI, 127-43
— (2008) The Sculptor's Studio at Aphrodisias. The Working Methods and Varieties of
Sculpture Produced, in Y. Z. Eliav, E. A. Friedland and S. Herbert eds., The Sculptural
Environment of the Roman Near East. Reflections on Culture, Ideology, and Power,
Leuven, 91-115
Roebuck, C. ed. (1969) The Muses at Work. Arts, Crafts and Professions in Ancient Greece
and Rome, Cambridge MA
Rohde, E. (1961) Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen [repr. 1897],
Darmstadt
Rolley, C. (1994) La sculpture grecque I. Des origines aux milieu du V ème siècle, Paris
— (1999) La sculpture grecque II. La période classique, Paris
324
Roochnik, D. (1996) Of Art and Wisdom. Plato’s Understanding of Techne, University Park PA
Roques de Maumont, H. von (1958) Antike Reiterstandbilder, Berlin
Rosenmeyer, P. A. (2006) Ancient Greek Literary Letters: Selections in Translation, London
Ross, L. (1855) Archäologische Aufsätze, Leipzig
Rouveret, A., S. Dubel and V. Naas eds. (2006) Couleurs et matières dans l’Antiquité. Textes,
techniques et pratiques, Paris
Sakellariou, M. (1996) Démocratie athénienne et culture: colloque international organisé par
l’Académie d’Athènes en coopération avec l’UNESCO (23, 24 and 25 novembre 1992),
Athens
Salta, M. (1991) Attische Grabstelen mit Inschriften: Beiträge zur Topographie und
Prosopographie der Nekropolen von Athen, Attika und Salamis vom Peloponnesischen
Krieg bis zur Mitte des 4. Jhs. v. Chr., [diss.] Tübingen
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. (2000) Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence,
Amsterdam
— (2000)1 Cultural Politics and Chronology, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg 2000, 79-106
Scafuro, A. C. (2006) Identifying Solon’s Laws, in Blok and Lardinois 2006, 175-96
Schachter, A. and J. Bingen (1992) Le Sanctuaire grec: huit exposés suivis de discussions,
Vandoeuvres-Geneva
Schauenburg, K. (1972) Der besorgte Marsyas, RM 79, 317-22
Schefold, H. (1970) Die thronende, Euthesion und Antigenes, AntK 13, 103-12
Scheibler, I. (1973) Die archaische Nekropole. Kerameikos III, Athens
— (1976) Griechische Lampen. Kerameikos XI, Berlin
— (1979) Griechische Künstlervotive der archaischen Zeit, MüJb 30, 7-30
— (1983) Griechische Töpferkunst: Herstellung, Handel und Gebrauch der antiken
Tongefässe, München
Scherrer, P. (1983) Das Weihgeschenk von Mikkiades und Archermos auf Delos, ÖJh 54,
19-25
Schiering, W. and J. W. H. Letsch (1991) Die Werkstatt des Pheidias in Olympia. 2. Teil:
Werkstattfunde, Berlin
Schilardi, D. U. (2000) Observations on the Quarries of Spilies, Lakkoi and Thapsana on
Paros, in Schilardi and Katsonopoulou 2000, 35-58
Schilardi, D. U. and D. Katsonopoulou (2000) Pari/a Li/qoj: latomei/a, ma/rmaro kai
ergasth/ria gluptikh/j thj Pa/rou. Praktika/ A / Dieqnou/j Sunedri/ou Arxaiologi/aj
Pa/rou kai Kukla/dwn, Paroiki/a, Pa/roj 2 – 5 Oktwbri/ou 1997, Athens
Schild-Xenidou, V. (2008) Corpus der boiotischen Grab- und Weihreliefs des 6. bis 4.
Jahrhunderts v. Chr., AM Beiheft 20, Mainz
325
Schliemann, H. (1888) Attische Grabinschriften, AM 13, 207-10
Schlörb, B. (1964) Untersuchungen zur Bildhauergeneration nach Phidias, Waldsassen
— (1968) Drei neue Grabreliefs aus der heiligen Straße, AM 83, 89-110
Schlörb-Vierneisel, B. (1964) Zwei klassische Kindergräber im Kerameikos, AM 79, 85-104
— (1997) Die figürlichen Terrakotten I. Spätmykenisch bis späthellenistisch. Kerameikos
XV, Munich
Schmaltz, B. (1970) Untersuchungen zu den attischen Marmorlekythen, Berlin
— (1983) Griechische Grabreliefs, Darmstadt
— (2001) Zur Wiederverwendung klassischer Grabreliefs, in Hoffmann and Lezzi-Hafter
2001, 44-51
— (2005) ERGON ARISTOKLEOS ARISTIONOS, AM 120, 163-71
Schmaltz, B. and M. Salta (2003) Zur Weiter- und Wiederverwendung attischer Grabreliefs
klassischer Zeit, JdI 118, 49-204
Schmitt Pantel, P., Les pratiques religieuses dans la construction de l’image des hommes
politiques athéniens du Ve siècle avant J.-C. : de l’idion au dèmosion, in Dasen and
Piérart 2005 (Kernos suppl. 15), 83-97
Schneider, C. (2000) Herr und Hund auf archaischen Grabstelen, JdI 115, 1-78
Schneider, H. (1992) Einführung in die antike Technikgeschichte, Darmstadt
Schneider, L. (1975) Zur sozialen Bedeutung der archaischen Korenstatuen, Hamburg
— (2001) Die Akropolis von Athen: eine Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte, Darmstadt
Schofield, M. (1998) Political Friendship and the Ideology of Reciprocity, in Cartledge, Millett
and Von Reden 1998, 37-51
Scholl, A. (1996) Die attischen Bildfeldstelen des 4. Jhs. v. Chr.: Untersuchungen zu den
kleinformatigen Grabreliefs im spätklassischen Athen, Berlin
— (2006) ANAQHMATA TWN ARXAIWN. The Akropolis Votives from the 8th to the Early
6th Century BC and the Formation of the Athenian City-State, JdI 121, 1-174
Scholl, A., B. Rainer and L. Raoul (1995) Die antiken Skulpturen in Farnborough Hall sowie in
Althorp House, Blenheim Palace, Lyme Park und Penrice Castle, Mainz
Schöne, R. (1872) Griechische Reliefs aus athenischen Sammlungen, Leipzig
Schrader, H. (1924) Phidias, Frankfurt am Main
Schrader, H, E. Langlotz and W. H. Schuchhardt (1939) Die archaischen Marmorbildwerke der
Akropolis, Frankfurt am Main
Schuchhardt, W.-H. (1967) Sitzender Dionysos, in W.-H. Schuchhardt ed., Antike Plastik VI,
Berlin 1967, 7-20
Schuller, W. and M. Dreher (2000) Auswahl und Bewertung von dramatischen Aufführungen
326
in der athenischen Demokratie, in Flensted-Jensen, Nielsen and Rubinstein 2000,
523-39
Schultz, P. (2001) The Akroteria of the Temple of Athena Nike, Hesperia 70, 1-47
Schulze, B. (2004) Die Votivtafeln der archaischen und klassischen Zeit von der Athener
Akropolis, Möhnesee
Schvoerer, M. ed. (1999) Asmosia IV. Archéomatériaux: marbres et autres roches, Bordeaux
Schwarz, G. (1987) Triptolemos: Ikonographie einer Agrar- und Mysteriengottheit, Horn
Schwenk, C. J. (1985) Athens in the Age of Alexander: The Dated Laws and Decrees of “the
Lykourgan Era” 338-322 BC, Chicago IL
Scott, M. C. (2007) Putting Architectural Sculpture into Its Archaeological context. The Case
of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi, BABesch 82, 321-31
— (forthcoming) Delphi And Olympia: The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in the Archaic
and Classical Periods, Cambridge
Settis, S. ed. (1996) I Greci: storia, cultura, arte, società, Turin
Shapiro, H. A. (1989) Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens, Mainz
— (1991) The Iconography of Mourning in Athenian Art, AJA 95, 629-56
— (1998) Autochthony and the Visual Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, in D. Boedeker and K.
E. Raaflaub eds., Democracy Empire and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, Cambridge
MA, 127-51
— (2001) L’Acropolis primo e dopo le Guerre Persiane: le sculture dell’ Acropoli e il loro
contesto sociale, ArchClass. 52, 1-14
— (2007) Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece, Cambridge
Shear, L. T. (1993) The Persian Destruction of Athens. Evidence from the Agora Deposits,
Hesperia 62, 383-482
Shear, T. L. (1933) The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora: First Report. The
Campaign of 1932, Hesperia 2, 451-74
— (1933) The Progress of the First Campaign of Excavation in 1931, Hesperia 2, 96-109
— (1933)1 The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora: First Report. The Sculpture,
Hesperia 2, 170-83
— (1939) The Campaign of 1938, Hesperia 8, 201-46
— (1969) The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1968, Hesperia 38, 382-417
— (1971) The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1970, Hesperia 40, 241-79
— (1973) The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1971, Hesperia 42, 121-79
— (1973)1 The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1972, Hesperia 42, 359-407
— (1984) The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1980-1982, Hesperia 53, 1-57
327
Shoe, L. T. (1949) Dark Stone in Greek Architecture, Hesperia Suppl. VIII (Commemorative
Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear), 341-52
Simon, E. (1983) Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Commentary, Madison WI
Sinclair, R. K. (1991) Democracy and Participation in Athens, Cambridge
Sinn, U. (1983) Beobachtungen zum ‘Realismus’ in der Grossplastik des 6. Jhs. v. Chr., AM
89, 25-43
— (1996) The Influence of Greek Sanctuaries on the Consolidation of Economic Power, in
Hellström and Alroth 1996, 67-74
Slings, S. (2000) Literature in Athens, 566-510, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg 2000, 57-77
— (2005) Choral Agon in Classical Athens, 510-400, in Enenkel and Pfeijffer 2005, 43-63
Smith, A. H. (1892) A Catalogue of Archaic Sculptures, London
— (1892) A Catalogue of Sculptures by the Successors of Pheidias, London
Smith, C. J. (1998) Traders and Artisans in Archaic Central Italy, in Parkins and Smith 1998,
31-51
Smith, R. (2007) Pindar, Athletes, and the Early Greek Statue Habit, in Hornblower and
Morgan 2007, 83-139
Snodgrass, A. M. (1980) Archaic Greece. The Age of Experiment, London
— (1983) Heavy freight in Archaic Greece, in Garnsey, Hopkins and Whittaker 1983, 16-26
— (1987) An Archaeology of Greece: The Present State and Future Scope of a Discipline,
Berkeley CA
— (2006) Archaeology and the Emergence of Greece, Ithaca NY
Sokolowski, F. (1969) Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Paris
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1995) ‘Reading’ Greek death: to the end of the classical period,
Oxford
Spivey, N. J. (1996) Understanding Greek Sculpture: Ancient Meanings, Modern Readings,
London
Stamatopoulou, M. and M. Yeroulanou eds. (2002) Excavating classical culture. Recent
archaeological discoveries in Greece, Oxford
Stanier, R. S. (1953) The Cost of the Parthenon, JHS 73, 68-76
Stanley, P. V. (1999) The Economic Reforms of Solon, St. Katharinen
Starr, C. G. (1958) An Overdose of Slavery, JEH 18, 17-32
Stears, K. (2000) The Times They Are A’Changing: Developments in Fifth-Century Funerary
Sculpture, in Oliver 2000, 25-58
Steiner, D. (2001) Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and
Thought, Princeton NJ
Steskal, M. (2004) Der Zerstörungsbefund 480/79 der Athener Akropolis: eine Fallstudie zum
328
etablierten Chronologiegerüst, Hamburg
Stewart, A. (1990) Greek Sculpture: An Exploration, New Haven CT
— (2008)1 The Persian and Carthaginian Invasions of 480 B.C.E. and the Beginning of the
Classical Style: Part 1, The Stratigraphy, Chronology and Significance of the Acropolis
Deposits, AJA 112, 377-412
— (2008)2 The Persian and Carthaginian Invasions of 480 B.C.E. and the Beginning of the
Classical Style: Part 2, The Finds from Other Sites in Athens, Attica, Elsewhere in Greece,
and on Sicily; Part 3, The Severe Style: Motivations and Meaning, AJA 112, 377-412
Stieber, M. C. (2004) The Poetics of Appearance in the Attic Korai, Austin TX
Stissi, V. V. (2002) Pottery to the People. The Production, Distribution and Consumption of
Decorated Pottery in the Greek World in the Archaic Period (650-480 BC), [diss.]
Amsterdam
— (2009) Does Function Follow Form? Archaic Greek Pottery in its Find Contexts: Uses and
Meanings, in V. Nørskov et al. eds., The World of Greek Vases, Rome, 23-43
Strocka, V. M. (1979) Variante, Wiederhohlung und Serie in der griechischen Bildhauerei, JdI
94, 143-73
Stroszeck, J. and R. Posamentir (2002) Der Friedhof des Kerameikos von Athen. Gräber als
Depot, in Zimmer 2002, 468-80
Stroud, R. (1971) Inscriptions from the North Slope of the Acropolis I, Hesperia 40, 146-204
Stupperich, R. (1977) Staatsbegräbnis und Privatgrabmal im klassischen Athen, Münster
Sturgeon, M. (2006) Archaic Athens and the Cyclades, in Palagia 2006, 32-76
Svoronos, J. N. (1908) Das Athener Nationalmuseum: Katalog der Ausstellungen, Athens
Sybel, L. von (1881) Katalog der Skulpturen zu Athen. Kentrikon Mouseion. Barbakeion
Lykeion. Hagia Trias. Theseion. Stoa des Hadrian. Ephoria. Südabhang der Akropolis.
Akropolis, Marburg
Tancke, K. (1993) Eine archaische Ritzstele vom Kerameikos, AM 108, 49-58
— (1995) Eine Zweifigurengruppe aus dem Kerameikos, AM 110, 305-20
Thomas, R. (1994) Literacy in Archaic and Classical Greece, in Bowman and Woolf 1994,
33-50
Thompson, H. A. (1948) The Excavation of the Athenian Agora. Twelfth Season: 1947,
Hesperia 17, 149-96
Thompson, H. A. (1951) Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1950, Hesperia 20, 45-60
— (1952) The Altar of Pity in the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 21, 47-82
— (1952)1 Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1951, Hesperia 21, 83-113
— (1958) Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1957, Hesperia 27, 145-60
— (1959) Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1958, Hesperia 28, 91-108
329
Thompson, H. A. (1960) Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1959, Hesperia 29, 327-68
— (1966) Activities in the Athenian Agora:1960-1965, Hesperia 35, 37-54
— (1976) The Athenian Agora: A Short Guide, Princeton NJ
— (1981) Athens Faces Adversity, Hesperia 50, 343-55
— (1982) Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography: Presented to
Homer A. Thompson (Hesperia Suppl. XX), Princeton NJ
Thompson, H. A. and R. E. Wycherley (1972) The Athenian Agora XIV. The History, Shape,
and Uses of an Ancient City Center, Princeton NJ
Thöne-Stringaris, R. N. (1965) Das griechische Totenmahl, AM 80, 1-99
Thorley, J. (2004) Athenian democracy, London
Threatte, L. (1980) The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, Berlin
Threpsiades, I. (1953) Anaskafikai/ e/reunai en Aqh/naij, Praktika 61-71
Tölle-Kastenbein, R. (1983) Bemerkungen zur absoluten Chronologie spätarchaischer und
frühklassischer Denkmäler Athens, AA 1983, 573-84
— (1992) Die Athener Akropolis-Koren, AntWelt 23, 133-48
— (1993) Das Hekatompedon auf der Athener Akropolis, JdI 108, 43-75
Tomlinson, R. (2000) Towards a Distribution Pattern for Parian Marble in the Architecture of
the 6th Century BC, in Schilardi and Katsonopoulos 2000, 139-42
Touloupa, E. (1972) Bronzebleche von der Akropolis in Athen, AM 87, 57-76
— (1991) Early Bronze Sheets with Figured Scenes from the Acropolis, D. Buitron-Oliver,
New Perspectives in Early Greek Art, Washington 1991, 240-71
Traill, J. S. (1975) The Political Organization of Attica: A Study of the Demes, Trittyes, and
Phylai, and Their Representation in the Athenian Council, Princeton NJ
— (1986) Demos and Trittys: Epigraphical and Topographical Studies in the Organization
of Attica, Toronto
— (2001) Persons of Ancient Athens, Toronto
Travlos, I. N. (1971) Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Athen, Tübingen
— (1988) Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika, Tübingen
Trianti, I. (1991) Two Fragments of Archaic Funerary Stelai, Hesperia 60, 237-40
— (1998) To Mousei/o Akropo/lewj, Athens
True, M. and J. Podany eds. (1990) Marble. Art Historical and Scientific Perspectives on
Ancient Sculpture. Papers of the Symposium, Malibu, April 28-30, 1988, Malibu CA
Tsakirgis, B. (2005) Living and Working Around the Athenian Agora: A Preliminary Case Study
of Three Houses, in B. A. Ault and L. C. Nevett eds., Ancient Greek Houses and
Households. Chronological, Regional, and Social Diversity, Philadelphia PA, 67-82
Tschira, A. (1972) Untersuchungen im Süden des Parthenon, JdI 87, 158-231
330
Umholtz, G. (2002) Architraval Arrogance? Dedicatory Inscriptions in the Greek Architecture
of the Classical Period, Hesperia 71, 261-93
Valdés Guía, M. (2002) Política y religión en Atenas arcaica: la reorganización de la polis en
época de Solón, una revisión de la documentación arqueológica, literaria y religiosa,
Oxford
Van den Hoven, B. (1996) Work in Ancient and Medieval Thought. Ancient Philosophers,
Medieval Monks and Theologians and Their Concept of Work, Occupations and
Technology, Amsterdam
Van Straten, F. T. (1981) Gifts for the Gods, in Versnel 1981, 65-151
— (1987) Greek Sacrificial Representations: Livestock Prices and Religious Mentality,
in Linders and Nordquist 1987, 159-70
— (1992) Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries, in Schachter and Bingen 1992,
247-84
— (1995) Hiera Kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece, Leiden
Vanderpool, E. (1974) The Date of the Pre-Persian City-Wall of Athens, in D. W. Bradeen
and M. F. McGregor eds., Studies in Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphy, Cincinatti WI 1974,
156-60
Vannier, F. (1988) Finances publiques et richesses privées dans le discours athénien aux V e et
IV e siècles, Paris
Veness, R. (2002) Investing the Barbarian? The Dress of Amazons in Athenian Art, in
Llewllyn-Jones 2002, 95-110
Verbanck-Piérard, A. and D. Viviers eds. (1995) Culture et cité. L’avènement d’Athènes à
l’époque archaïque. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’Université libre de
Bruxelles du 25 au 27 avril 1991, Brussels 1995
Vermeule, C. C. (1969) Polykleitos, Boston MA
Vermeule, E. (1979) Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry, Berkeley CA
Vernant, J. P. (1991) The Birth of Images, in Zeitlin 1991, 164-85
Versnel, H. S. (1981) Faith, hope and worship: Aspects of religious mentality in the ancient
world, Leiden
Vickers, M. (1985) Artful Crafts: The Influence of Metal Work on Athenian Painted Pottery,
JHS 105, 108-28
Vierneisel, K. (1965) Die Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos, ADelt 20.I, 37-40
Vierneisel, K. and R. Wünsche (1979) Katalog der Skulpturen. Glyptothek München, Munich
Vierneisel-Schlörb, B. (1988) Klassische Grabdenkmäler und Votivreliefs, Munich
— (1997) Die figurlichen Terrakotten: I. Spätmykenisch bis späthellenistisch. Kerameikos
XV, Berlin
331
Vikela, E. (1997) Attische Weihreliefs und die Kult-Topgraphie Attikas, AM 112, 167-246
— (2005) Griechische Reliefweihungen an Athena. Ikonographie der Göttin und
Bildkomposition der Reliefs, AM 120, 87-158
Viviers, D. (1987) De l'école de sculpture à l'atelier de sculpteurs. Quelques réflexions sur les
signatures de sculpteurs à Athènes au VIe siècle avant notre ère, AHAA 9, 43-57
— (1992) Recherches sur les ateliers de sculpteurs à Athènes à l’époque archaïque:
Endoios, Philergos, Aristoklès, Brussels
— (1995) Les ateliers de sculpteurs en Attique. Des styles pour une cité, in VerbanckPierard and Viviers 1995, 211-23
Vlassopoulos, K. (2007) Free spaces. Identity, Experience and Democracy in Classical Athens,
ClQ 57, 33-52
Vlassopoulou, C. (2003) Attikoi/ ana/glufoi pi/nakej thj arxai+kh/j epoxh/j, Athens
— (2005) Neue Skulpturenfragmente von der Akropolis. Beobachtungen zur Ikonographie
der Athena in klassischer Zeit, AM 120, 173-211
Voorhis, J. A. V. (1998) Apprentices’ Pieces and the Training of Sculptors at Aphrodisias, JRA
11, 176-92
Waelkens, M., P. de Paepe and L. Moens (1988) Patterns of Extraction and Production in the
White Marble Quarries of the Mediterranean: History, Present Problems and Prospects, in
Fant 1988, 81-116
— (1990) The Quarrying Techniques of the Greek World, in True and Podany 1990, 47-72
Waelkens, M., N. Herz and L. Moens eds. (1992) Asmosia II: Ancient Stones. Quarrying, Trade
and Provenance, Leuven
Wagner, C. (2000) The Potters and Athena: Dedications on the Athenian Acropolis, in G. R.
Tsetskhladze, A. J. N. W. Prag and A. M. Snodgrass eds., Periplous: Papers on Classical
Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman, London 2000, 383-7
Wagner-Hasel, R. (2002) The Graces and Colour Weaving, in Llewllyn-Jones 2002, 17-32
Wallace-Hadrill, A. ed. (1989) Patronage in Ancient Society, London
Walbank, M. B. (1983) Leases of Sacred Properties in Attica, Part IV, Hesperia 52, 207-31
Walle, B. v. d. and G. Faider-Feytmans (1952) Les antiquités égyptiennes, grecques,
étrusques, romaines et gallo-romaines du Musée de Mariemont: catalogue, Brussels
Wallert, A. (1995) Unusual Pigments on a Greek Marble Basin, Stud. Conserv. 40, 177-88
Walters, K. R. (1983) Perikles’ Citizenship Law, ClAnt 2, 314-36
Waywell, G. B. (1967) A Four-Horse Chariot Relief of the 5th Century BC, BSA 62, 19-26
Webster, T. B. (1972) Potter and Patron in Classical Athens, London
Welsh, S. M. (1906) An Attic Grave Lekythos, JHS 26, 229-34
Welwei, K.- W. (1983) Die griechische Polis: Verfassung und Gesellschaft in archaischer und
332
klassischer Zeit, Stuttgart
Welwei, K.- W. (2000) Polis und Archè: kleine Schriften zu Gesellschafts- und
Herrschaftsstrukturen in der griechischen Welt, Stuttgart
Whitehead, D. (1977) The Ideology of the Athenian Metic, Cambridge
— (1986) Women and Naturalisation in Fourth-Century Athens: The Case of Archippe, CQ
36, 109-14
— (1986)1 The Demes of Attica, 508/7-ca. 250 B.C.: A Political and Social Study, Princeton
Whitley, J. (1991) Style and Society in Dark Age Greece: The Changing Face of a Pre-Literate
Society, 1100-700 BC, Cambridge
Wijma, S. M. (2010) Joining the Athenian Community. The Participation of Metics in Athenian
Polis Religion in the Fifth and Fourth centuries B.C., [diss.] Groningen
Willemsen, F. (1963) Archaische Grabmalbasen aus der Athener Stadtmauer, AM 78, 104-53
— (1970) Mitteilungen aus dem Kerameikos: Stelen, AM 85, 25-44
— (1970)1 Mitteilungen aus dem Kerameikos: Grab- und Weihinschriften, AM 85, 100-13
— (1977) Zu den Lakedämoniergräbern im Kerameikos, AM 92, 117-57
Willers, D. (1975) Zu den Anfängen der archaischen Plastik in Griechenland, Berlin
Wilson, P. (2000) The Athenian Institution of the ‘Khoregia’: The Chorus, the City and the
Stage, Cambridge
— (2007) The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies, Oxford
Wiseman, J. (1968) An Unfinished Colossus on Mt. Pendeli, AJA 72, 75-6
Woysch-Méautis, D. (1982) La représentation des animaux et des êtres fabuleux sur les
monuments funéraires grecs: de l’époque archaïque à la fin du IV ème siècle av. J.-C,
Neuchâtel
Wrede, H. (1986) Die antike Herme, Mainz
Wrede, W. (1928) Der Maskengott, AM 53, 66-95
Wurch-Kozelj, M. (1988) Methods of Transporting Blocks in Antiquity, in Herz and Waelkens
1988, 55-64
Wycherley, R. E. (1953) The Painted Stoa, Phoenix 7, 20-35
— (1957) The Athenian Agora III. Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia, London
— (1974) The Stones of Athens, GR 21 (N.S.), 54-67
Yalouris, N. (1950) Athena als Herrin der Pferde: archäologische Untersuchungen zu Pindars
13. Olympie, [diss.] Basel
Young, R. S. (1951) An Industrial District of Ancient Athens, Hesperia 20, 135-288
— (1951)1 Sepulturae Intra Urbem, Hesperia 20, 67-134
Zagdoun, M. (1978) Collection Paul Kanellopoulos XI: Sculptures I, BCH 102, 285-324
Zeitlin, F. I. ed. (1991) Mortals and Immortals. Collected Essays, Princeton NJ
333
Zimmer, G. (1990) Griechische Bronzegusswerkstätten: zur Technologieentwicklung eines
antiken Kunsthandwerkes, Mainz
Zimmer, G. (1999) Wohnen und arbeiten. Der griechische Bürger und die Welt der Arbeit, in
R. F. Docter and E. M. Moormann eds., Classical Archaeology Towards the Third
Millennium. Reflections and Perspectives. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress
of Classical Archaeology, Amsterdam, July 12 – 7, 1998, Amsterdam, 467-9
Zimmer, G. (2006) Handwerk auf der Agora. Eine notwendige Ergänzung, in W. Hoepfner and
L. Lehmann eds., Die griechische Agora. Bericht über ein Kolloquium am 16.3.2003 in
Berlin, Mainz, 33-40
334